



^ c ° N c * * r h cv 




\V •/> 



K * \ X 












\- 




OCT 
> 













w 








V ^ "^ 






9 1 A 


' 


















-\ X , N (, tj '/- 



*f .1* \* 



THE 

DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN 



BY DR. HUDSON. 

» 

THE LAW OF PSYCHIC PHENOMENA. 

12mo *..*.. .$1.50 

A SCIENTIFIC DEMONSTRATION OF THE 

FUTURE LIFE. 12mo . . 1.50 

THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 12mo. 1.50 

— * — 

A. C McCLURG & CO. 

CHICAGO. 



THE DIVINE 



PEDIGREE OF MAN 



OR 



THE TESTIMONY OF EVOLUTION AND PSYCHOLOGY 
TO THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD 



BY 



THOMSON JAY HUDSON, LL.D. 

AUTHOR OF "THE LAW OF PSYCHIC PHENOMENA," "A SCIENTIFIC 

DEMONSTRATION OF THE FUTURE LIFE," 

ETC. 




SECOND EDITION 



CHICAGO 

A. C. McCLURG & CO. 

1900 



PREFACE. 



IN attempting to fulfil a task so important, and 
from a layman's point of view so difficult, as that 
of outlining a scientific basis of Christian theism, I 
feel it to be due to my readers that I should state 
the causes which led me to undertake it, and the 
principles by which I have been guided in carrying 
it to a conclusion. 

It is scarcely necessary to remark that this book 
was not written for the benefit of those who have 
already found in Holy Writ sufficient evidence to 
convince them of the existence of an intelligent 
Great First Cause. Nor was it written to convince 
anybody of the soundness of the theory of organic 
evolution. 

It was written for the benefit of that large and 
constantly enlarging class of men who are imbued 
w r ith the ultra-scientific dogma that nothing in either 
physical science or spiritual philosophy is worthy 
of belief if it is not confirmed by a series of well- 
authenticated facts, — a congeries of observable natu- 
ral phenomena. This class of course includes many 
who are not themselves scientists, but who, having 
been unable to assimilate the logic of the theologian, 
pin their faith upon the asseverations of those scien- 



r 



Vlll PREFACE. 

tists who claim to have definitely ascertained that 
there is nothing in man that cannot be dragged to 
light by means of the surgeon's instruments or the 
appliances of the chemist's laboratory ; or upon the 
reasoning of those logicians who claim to have dis- 
covered, by the process of inductive inquiry, that 
there is " no logical necessity " for the existence of 
an intelligent Deity. It was written more especially 
for the benefit of that large and constantly multiply- 
ing class of intelligent students who have become 
convinced of the substantial correctness of the gen- 
eral theory of organic evolution, many of whom 
have, at the same time, been led to adopt the athe- 
istic conclusions reached by the great pioneers in 
that science. Not that all, or even the greater part, 
of the students of evolution have been thus led 
astray ; for they have not. On the contrary, I think 
it may be safely assumed that a great majority of 
educated persons of all religious denominations now 
recognize evolution as God's method of creation. 
They have, indeed, not been slow to recognize the 
fact that the teleological argument has been im- 
mensely fortified by the simple facts of organic evo- 
lution ; and they have been content to ignore the 
atheistic hypotheses that were at first heralded as 
necessary elements of the theory of evolution itself. 
Nevertheless, there are many earnest seekers after 
truth who are not thus fortified against the specious 
arguments of atheism; some of whom are prone to 
accept, at its face value, the gratuitous assumption 
that the atheistic hypotheses of evolutionists are as 
well sustained by facts as is the theory of evolu- 
tion itself. It was to expose this error — this fruit- 



PREFACE, ix 

ful source of manifold errors — and to show that the 
facts of evolution are susceptible of no other than a 
theistic interpretation, that this book was written. 
In other words, it was written to show that the facts 
of organic and mental evolution point clearly and 
unmistakably to a divine origin of mind and life on 
this earth; and that the atheistic theories of agnostic 
evolutionists are positively and unqualifiedly desti- 
tute of facts to sustain them. 

I have, therefore, deemed it best to frame my 
argument upon purely scientific lines, avoiding spec- 
ulative philosophy, and adhering strictly to the in- 
ductive method of investigation. To that end I 
have resisted the temptation to strengthen my argu- 
ment by quotations from Holy Writ; although the 
Bible is full of pertinent passages which the Biblical 
scholar will not fail to recognize and apply. I have 
not even touched upon the teleological argument; 
although the teleologist will not fail to find an 
abundance of material for his purpose in the facts 
presented. 

As already intimated, the facts of organic and 
mental evolution alone form the basis of my argu- 
ment for theism, per se. And when I say that I 
have accepted those facts as they are set forth by 
the atheistic evolutionists, the reader will understand 
that I have not selected my authorities from among 
those who might be biased in favor of my conclu- 
sions. Also, I have accepted their arguments in favor 
of the general theory of organic evolution; and I 
have carried those arguments to their logical con- 
clusion. In so doing I have shown that every fact 
and every argument that sustains the theory of 



X PREFACE. 

evolution also proves, with stronger reason, the divine 
origin of life and mind. 

In pursuing my investigations I have adopted the 
plan of going back to the very beginning of organic 
life on this planet in search of evidence to prove 
my thesis. I have done this on the theory that the 
nearer we approach to the source of anything the 
more clearly will the nature of the source be re- 
vealed in the observable phenomena. When I say 
that I have not been disappointed in my quest, the 
reader may understand that I have found in the 
lowest forms of animal life indubitable evidence of 
the divine origin of mind and life on this earth. I 
have also duly considered the other salient facts, 
phases, and stages of organic evolution, from the 
monera to man, with the result of finding that the 
uniform trend is in the same direction. 

It is, however, one thing to establish the general 
doctrine of the divine origin of life and mind, and 
quite another to sustain the specific doctrine of 
Christian theism. The one is amply proven by the 
facts of organic evolution alone ; the other requires 
the aid of psychology. 

I have, therefore, given particular attention to the 
latter science, not only with special reference to its 
bearing upon Christian theism, but with regard to its 
bearing upon the general subject of organic evolu- 
tion. Those readers who are familiar with my former 
works will readily understand that I refer to the new 
psychology; that is, to that system of psychology 
the fundamental principles of which were outlined in 
"The Law of Psychic Phenomena." In the present 
work I have simply carried to its legitimate conclu- 



PREFACE. xi 

sion the fundamental hypothesis set forth in the work 
above mentioned. I have been moved to do so for 
many good and sufficient reasons, among which are : 
(i) The hypothesis has already been demonstrated 
to be capable of correlating all psychical phenomena, 
and explaining them on scientific principles. (2) It 
harmonizes with all the facts of the physical sci- 
ences, including those of organic and mental evolu- 
tion. (3) It is the only hypothesis that furnishes a 
complete answer to the arguments of materialism in 
reference to the question of the existence of a soul 
in man, or of its immortality. (4) And finally, it 
is the only psychological hypothesis yet promul- 
gated that completely harmonizes all the facts of 
science with the essential doctrines of the Christian 
religion. 

I have felt constrained, therefore, to make psy- 
chology a prominent feature of this book; and in so 
doing I have attempted to outline the fundamental 
principles which may manifest the harmony that 
exists between science and religion. Owing to the 
limitations of space in a volume like this, I have been 
compelled to confine myself to the specific subject 
of Christian theism, leaving much unsaid that bears 
upon the general subject of Christianity. The pur- 
pose of my undertaking will have been accomplished, 
however, if I have been able to point out to others a 
method of research which will enable them to carry 
forward the work that is here begun. 

I have no apology to make for the faults of con- 
struction and style of this book, other than to say 
that it may appear that there are undue repetitions, 
but it will be found that these are necessary to the 



xii PREFACE, 

continuity of the thought or argument. Some of 
them are, perhaps, due to the fact that much of the 
matter has been taken from my lectures and essays 
on special branches of the subject here treated. 

T. J. H. 

Washington, D. C, 

October 10, 1899. 



CONTENTS. 



pm i. 

EVOLUTION AND PSYCHOLOGY. 



Page 

Introduction 31 

CHAPTER I. 

AGNOSTICISM. 

Definition of " Agnosticism. " — Aggressive Ignorance. — Mr. Her- 
bert Spencer's " First Principles." — His Charitable Effort to 
harmonize Religion and Science. — His "Great Unknowable." 
— His Numerous " Unthinkables." — His Petitio Prmcipii. — 
His Dogmatism. — His Statement of Fundamental Proposi- 
tions. — His Lame and Impotent Conclusions. — His " Basis of 
Reconciliation." — It is simply a Wholesale Acknowledgment 
of Ignorance. — It strikes at the very Root of Christian Faith. — 
It invites Imbecile Acquiescence in Agnosticism instead of Sci- 
entific Investigation of Theism. — Mr. Spencer's " First Princi- 
ples " Re-examined. — A Legitimate Conclusion Sought for. — 
The Conditions Requisite. — The Fundamental Harmony of all 
Religions. — No Real Conflict between Religion and Science. — 
It is between Science and Man-made Theological Dogmas. — 
True Science is True Religion's Best Friend. — True Science is 
promotive of the Highest Conceptions of, and the most Exalted 
Reverence for, the God of Christian Faith. — Science is Pro- 
motive of all Truth. — There are not two Antagonistic Orders 
of Truth. — Truth the only Basis of Reconciliation between 
Religion and Science. — Science furnishes the Data for the 
Inductive Study of Religion 42 



xiv CONTENTS, 

CHAPTER II. 

PSYCHOLOGY. 

Page 
General Principles of Psychology illustrated by Facts of Evolu- 
tion. — " The Law of Psychic Phenomena." — Its Hypothesis 
sustained by Facts of Evolution. — A Summary of Fundamental 
Principles. — The Dual Mind. — The Law of Suggestion. — Ob- 
jective and Subjective Minds differentiated. — Their Powers 
and their Limitations. — Suggestion defined. — Hypnotism. — 
Faculties of the Two Minds tabulated. — An Analysis of the 
Objective Mind. — Its one Faculty Inductive Reason. — Its De- 
fective Memory. — Its Dependence upon Cultivation and Re- 
functioning. — Its Faculties constitute Pure Intellect. — The 
Mind of Reason and Judgment. — Its Sphere of Activity purely 
Mundane. — It is the Product of Evolutionary Development. — 
It perishes with the Body. — The Subjective Mind. — It is the 
Primary Intelligence. — It existed Millions of Years in Animal 
Life before a Brain was evolved. — It is the Ultimate Intelli- 
gence. — Synchronic Action of the Two Minds. — Genius. — 
The Brain not the Organ of the Subjective Mind. — The Dual 
Mind normally controlled by the Objective Mind. — The Law 
of Suggestion its Instrument. — Voluntary and Involuntary 
Functions. — One by the Objective Mind, the Other by the Sub- 
jective. — Exceptions in Deadly Peril. — The Subjective Mind 
is fitted especially for a Higher Plane of Existence .... 62 

CHAPTER III. 

PSYCHOLOGY OF MICRO-ORGANISMS. 

The General Theory of Evolution. — Too well established to re- 
quire Full Discussion. — The Pedigree of Man stamped upon 
his Physical Organism. — The Three Theories of Evolution : 
Materialistic, Agnostic, and Theistic. — Darwin, Romanes, and 
Haeckel accepted as Authorities for Facts, not for Theories. — 
Facts showing Duality of Mind. — The Brain not the Organ of 
the Subjective Mind. — The Genesis of the Human Soul. — The 
very Lowest Form of Animal Life. — The Moneron. — An " Or- 
ganism without Organs " endowed with a Mind. — Quotations 
from Gates, Binet, and Others. — The " Psychic Life of Micro- 
organisms." — Their Habits and Mind Capacity. — Reflex Ac- 
tion discussed. — Not Adequate to account for Phenomena. — 
All Vital Phenomena Present in Non-Differentiated Cells. — 
Wonderful Instincts of the Dijflugia. — Romanes on Instinct. 
— The Subjective Mind of Man and Animals Identical. — It is 



CONTENTS. xv 

Page 
the Mind that is inherited from Ancestry, Near and Remote. — 
Instincts increase with Intelligence. — Primary and Secondary 
Instincts. — New Ones developed in Game Animals. — Change 
of Environment develops New Dangers ; hence New or Sec- 
ondary Instincts. — All Instincts Inheritable. — Subjective 
Mind of Man the Sum of Ancestral Instincts. — It antedated 
Brain by many Ages. — Brain, therefore, not the Organ of Sub- 
jective Mind 74 

CHAPTER IV. 

EVOLUTION AND THE SUBJECTIVE MIND. 

The Brain not the Organ of the Subjective Mind. — Proven by its 
Identity with the Instinctive Minds of Animals. — The Latter 
proven by its Continuity from Lowest Organisms up to Man. — 
Continuity proven by Comparative Analysis of Faculties and 
Functions. — Instinct in Lower Animals Identical with Intuition 
in Man. — Its Definition. — The Deductive Faculty potentially 
Perfect in Subjective Minds of Animals as well as Men. — The 
Emotions are Faculties of the Subjective Minds of Men and 
Animals alike. — They antedated the Brain. — Objective Mind 
is Emotionless. — Induction and Concomitant Memories, its 
only Functions or Faculties. — Telepathy a Power of the Sub- 
jective Mind. — It exists potentially in Animals. — Telekinesis 
a Subjective Power. — It is the Power that enabled Jesus and 
Peter to walk upon the Water. — It reappears in so-called 
Spirit Phenomena. — The Mysterious Motility of the Polycys- 
tids. — Science cannot explain it under Physical Laws. — All 
Subjective Powers derived from Lower Animals, beginning 
with the Unicellular Organisms. — Further Proof by Experi- 
mental Surgery. — Scientific Search for a Soul with a Scalpel. 

— Materialistic Arguments from Cerebral Anatomy disproved. 

— They have searched in the Wrong Place for the Soul. — The 
Soul is Immanent in the Body, not Inherent in it. — Proofs from 
Voluntary and Involuntary Muscles and Functions. — Time 
Reaction Different in the Two Minds. — Phenomena when 
Death approaches. — Subjective Mind grows Stronger as Ob- 
jective Mind grows Weaker. — Strongest Manifestations in the 
Hour of Death, after Brain has ceased to act. — Death-Bed 
Scene when Governor Matthews passed away. — The Physi- 
cian's Testimony. — The Wonderful Power of Suggestion then 
exhibited. — Proofs from Experimental Hypnotism. — The Phe- 
nomena of Amnesia a Crucial Test. — Spontaneous Somnam- 
bulism. — Proofs from Phenomena of Dreams 87 



xvi CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER V. 

EVOLUTION AND THE OBJECTIVE MIND. 

Pag* 
Table showing when Brain was evolved. — Rapidity of Subse- 
quent Evolutionary Progress. — Geometrical Rate of Increase 

— The Neptunian Strata. — The Inconceivable Length of Time 
embraced in Organic History. — Psychological Lessons taught 
by the Table. — More than One Half the Time elapsed before 
a Brain appeared on this Earth. — Progress Slow up to that 
Time. — Development more Rapid in the Next Epoch, but still 
Slow. — One Third of the Time consumed in the Age of 
Fishes. — The Following Epoch made still more Rapid Prog- 
ress, yet about One Ninth of the Time was consumed in the 
Reptilian Age. — The Age of Mammals occupied but about 
One Fiftieth of the Whole Time. — The Age of Man but One 
Two-Hundredth Part. — The Historic Period occupied but an 
infinitesimally Small Part of One Per Cent of the Whole 
Time. — The Significance of these Facts. — The Real Func- 
tion of the Brain in Organic Life. — When did Animals begin 
to Reason ? — The Brain as a Factor in Evolutionary Develop- 
ment. — Its Inductive Powers. — Its Ability to cope with an 
Environment of Error incident to Organic Life in the Forma- 
tive Stage. — The Significance of the Intuitive Faculty. — An- 
other Plane of Existence its Apparent Realm of Activity. — 
Some Fundamental Axioms. — Secondary Instincts. — The 
Power of Induction in Animals. — Increased Rate of Progres- 
sive Development due to that Faculty 107 

CHAPTER VI. 

THE PROCESS OF EVOLUTION. 

Objective Mind educates the Subjective Mind. — Hence the In- 
stinct of Animals is exactly proportioned to their Intelligence. 

— Authorities cited. — Progressive Mental Evolution brought 
about by Development of Secondary Instincts. — Romanes on 
Primary and Secondary Instincts. — The Latter brought about 
by " Natural Selection." — The Absurdity of that Theory illus- 
trated. — The General Theory of Natural Selection accepted 
with Reservations, but it is overloaded to an Absurd Degree. 

— Lamarck's Theory of " Appetency " also accepted with Quali- 
fications. — The Two Theories Complementary. — Further 
Illustration of the Absurdity of ascribing Primary Instincts 
to Natural Selection. — A Logical Axiom, " Never need- 
lessly multiply Causes. ,, — Primary and Secondary Instincts 



"QNTENTS. xvii 

Pagb 
defined. — They accord with the History of Organic Evolu- 
tion. — New Environmental Conditions reveal New Dangers. 
— These are at first intelligently overcome. — Habit converts 
the Acts into Instincts which are then inherited. — Natural 
Selection not an Original Cause of New Species. — Strictly 
speaking, it is not a Law of Nature. — " Survival of the Fittest " 
an Incident, not a Law. — It is an Effect of other Causes. — 
Natural Selection not the Origin of Species. — Natural Selec- 
tion is the Theory of Chance. — It is Atheistic in its Last Anal- 
ysis. — Lamarck's Theory. — It is a Necessary Factor in any 
Complete Theory of Evolution. — Structural Changes due to 
New Instinctive Impulses. — The Latter due to Brain Develop- 
ment. — Brain Development due to constantly Increasing Com- 
plexities of Environment. — This is True of Man as of the 
Lower Animals. — Each Individual Intelligence is the Sum of 
all Ancestral Instincts plus its Objective Intelligence . . . . i 

CHAPTER VII. 

RECAPITULATION. 

Instincts of the Unicellular Organism. — Its Impellent Ene - 
— The Constant Force back of Evolution. — The Law is I 
ress. — Nature's Novum Organum. — Useful Instincts a 
manent Heritage. — Appetency the Effective Agency o { 
gressive Development. — Every Mind Organism < T 
Elements of Conservation and Progress. -—The Ir 
of Natural Law. — The same Laws prevail in ( 
Mental, Moral and Spiritual Development. — 
stincts the same in Animals and Men. — The 
of Secondary Instincts. — Instinct and Intuition 
Emotions have the same Root and Origin. — Re 
ship a Filial Emotion. — Animal Telepathy. — Te 
ergy. — Objective and Subjective Memory differei 
Men as in Animals the Increasing Complexity 
ment the Spur to Progressive Development. - 
Animals the Bulk of Intelligence is Subjecth 
mate Ego is the Subjective Entity. —All tha 
serving in the Future Life resides in the Subjf 

CHAPTER VIII. 

THE TWO GREAT GENERIC INS 

The Simplicity of Nature's Laws. — Evolutioi 
Two Instincts responsible for all the Phenoi 

b 



xvin CONTENTS. 

Pagb 
ary Development. — Self-Preservation and the Instinct of Evo- 
lution : one Conservative, the other Progressive and Creative. — 
Natural Selection not a Law, but an Incident. — Evolutionary 
Instinct a Constant Force. — It is also Altruistic in all its Im- 
pulses. — Illustrations from Every-Day Life. — Fallacies of the 
Old Philosophies. — They refer Everything to Instinct of Self- 
Preservation. — With them all Virtue or Benevolence a Subli- 
mated Form of Selfishness. — Herbert Spencer's Philosophy of 
Utilitarianism. — Pure Selfishness. — Altruistic Acts the most 
Pleasurable, because in Harmony with the Strongest Instinct. 
— Primordial Altruism. — The Creative Energy Inherent in all 
Sentient Creatures. — Human Character determined by Rela- 
tive Development of the Two Instincts. — Altruistic Impulses 
Predominant in the World. — Welfare of Future Generations 
the Incentive. — Schools, Colleges, Churches, and Eleemosy- 
nary Institutions, are Examples. — Altruistic Instinct Stronger 
lan Instinct of Self-Preservation, otherwise there could be no 
ogress. — The most Altruistic Governments the most Pro- 
sive, and the People the most Patriotic and Brave and 
like and Humane. — Progress toward Universal Altruism 
ant and Rapid. — Atavistic and Degenerate Nations — 
Decadence. — Central Ideas of Evolutionists and Chris- 
eism harmonized. — The Evolutionary Instinct the Im- 
Energy of Physical, Mental, Moral, and Religious 



159 



CHAPTER IX. 

V THE TWO INSTINCTS IN THE INDIVIDUAL. 

^Man's Environment of a Moral, Social, and 
.4 — Same Process of Development with Men 
J — Brain Mind reasons out a Line of Con- 
Jnverts it into a Permanent Characteristic. 
1 Attribute of the Subjective Mind, i. e. In- 
then Inheritable. —The Warfare between 
)n . — Not for the Suppression of Passional 
heir Regulation. — Reason the Judicial Tri- 
of its Decisions constitutes the Character 
— As befits its Judicial Character, the Rea- 
lotionless. — Nevertheless it ministers to 
ecides upon what is Best for the Individ- 
5 Novum Organum of Animal Intelligence, 
xecutive Agency of the Judicial Tribunal, 
vhich invests Man with Dominion over 
deluding Himself. — Intellectual Faculties 



CONTENTS. xix 

Page 
of Subjective Mind rarely appear above the Surface. — Ex- 
ceptions in Genius. — Emotions, however, constantly in Evi- 
dence. — Synchronism of the Two Minds. — Facts demonstrat- 
ing Duality of Mind. — Hypnotism, Somnambulism, etc. — 
Objective Mind not controlled by Suggestion. — Subjective 
Mind is so controlled except in Matters of Conscience. — Man 
not handicapped by a Preponderance of Evil in his Nature. 

— The Strongest Instinct impels to Progress. — Reason is on 
the Side of Right, — A Crucial Question. — Why does the 
Mortal Mind dominate the Immortal Mind in this Life? — 
The Question answered. — The Immortal, or Subjective, 
Mind was destined for a Higher Plane of Ultimate Existence. 

— Meantime Subjective Faculties must develop on this Plane. 

— Reason the Agency. — Thus Man was made a Free Moral 
Agent. 177 



CHAPTER X. 

EVOLUTION OF THE TWO INSTINCTS IN THE STATE. 

The same Laws of Development prevail in States as in Individ- 
uals. — All Aggregations have their Origin in Intelligent Ap- 
preciation of the Necessity for Mutual Protection. — Reason 
teaches Mutual Helpfulness and Forbearance. — Churches, 
Schools, and Benevolent Institutions follow in their Order. — 
Altruism is intelligently practised. — Habit converts it into an 
Instinctive Emotion. — In due Time Patriotism becomes In- 
stinctive. — It is developed in Proportion to Beneficence of 
Institutions. — Foreign War the Supreme Test of Patriotism. 

— Capable of Indefinite Expansion. — Its Origin in Parental 
Instinct. — May be expanded so as to embrace all Humanity. 

— Its Highest Manifestations in the most Progressive Nations. 

— In such Nations it approaches Universal Altruism. — It be- 
comes more than mere Love of Country. — It becomes the 
Missionary Agent of Christian Civilization. — Trade and Com- 
merce its Promoters. — The Incentive to all Effort and all 
Progress. — It is God's Method of inciting Men to Action. — 
Contrast with the " Gentle Savage," who neither works nor 
fights. — Hunger as an Intellectual Stimulant alike with Ani- 
mals and Men. — Nations must be Prosperous before they can 
be Altruistic. — God's Bounty from a Full Store. — Accumula- 
tions of Wealth cannot properly be discouraged, yet God re- 
quires an Accounting 191 



xx CONTENTS. 



CHAPTER XL 

EVOLUTION OF CONSCIENCE AND RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES. 

Pagb 
Normal Control of the Subjective Mind. — When Conscience be- 
comes Instinctive. — A Secondary Instinct. — The Ultimate 
Instinctive Emotion of the Human Soul. — Dominates all 
other Emotions. — It was developed precisely the same as 
were all other Secondary Instincts. — It was the Result of the 
Inductive Reasoning of the Objective Mind. — Facts of Ob- 
servation and Experience resulted in the Maxim, " Honesty is 
the Best Policy." — This is Mr. Spencer's Conscience. — It 
culminates just where Real Conscience begins. — It is the 
Utilitarian Conscience. — It is a Step in the Process of Develop- 
ment, not the Process itself. — It constitutes a Suggestion to 
the Subjective Mind. — The Suggestion is accepted and de- 
ductively carried to Higher Conclusions — It is thus reinforced 
by every Religious Principle or Emotion. — It is further assisted 
by Intuition. — As with the Lower Animals, so with Man. — 
Every Step in Advance is accompanied by Increased Powers of 
Intuitive Perception of Essential Truth. — Jesus of Nazareth is 
an Example. — The Older Prophets. — Conscience, however, 
may be perverted. — Hence the Inquisition and Religious 
Wars ; hence Cranks. — Perverted or unperverted, it is the 
Strongest Emotion of the Human Soul. — Perverted Con- 
science the Exception; hence Progress toward the Higher 
Altruism. — It is when Conscience becomes Instinctive that 
the Subjective Mind assumes the Ascendancy. — The Sugges- 
tions of Conscience overshadow all other Suggestions. — At 
the Threshold of the Moral and Religious Realm the Soul 
asserts its Normal Supremacy 203 



part 11. 

PSYCHOLOGY AND CHRISTIAN THEISM. 



CHAPTER I. 

PRELIMINARY. 

Facts of Evolution to be distinguished from Theories of Evolu- 
tionists. — Theistic Argument, per se, to be based upon Facts 
presented by Antitheistic Evolutionists, — Darwin, Haeckel, 



CONTENTS. xxi 

Page 
and Romanes. — Their Arguments for Evolution to be utilized 
as a Basis of Theistic Conclusions. — Exception to be taken 
to Subsidiary Hypotheses. — Distinction to be drawn between 
Theisms. — Theism, per se y proven by Facts of Evolution. — 
Christian Theism by Evolution and Psychology. — The World 
interested alone in Christian Theism. — Is Christian Civiliza- 
tion founded on Truth or Error ? — The New Psychology a 
Necessary Factor. — The Old Psychologies Inadequate to 
a Solution of the Problem 219 

CHAPTER II. 

THE GREAT ATHEISTIC PETITIO PRINCIPII. 

Logical Cobwebs to be cleared away. — The Real Question : Is 
there a Personal Deity? — Anthropomorphism not Chargeable 
under New Psychology. — The Service rendered by Evolution- 
ists. — Refuted Doctrine of Special Creations, and then said 
in their Hearts, " There is no God." — Mr. Darwin's Great 
Labor directed toward Atheism. — Entitled to Credit for prov- 
ing Evolution. — Natural Selection as the Origin of Species 
not sustained by Facts. — Artificial Selection produces New 
Morphological Species, not Physiological. — Examples. — Hux- 
ley takes this View. — Proof of Natural Selection lacking. — 
The Theory clung to by Atheism, because it disguises the 
Theory that Physical Organism antedates Intelligence. — This 
is the Stronghold of Atheism. — It is assumed without Proof, 
which is begging the Question. — Theory of Spontaneous Gen- 
eration without One Fact to support it. — All Known Facts 
against it. — Haeckel assumes it confessedly without Facts. — 
Begs the Question. — Tyndall's Experiments failed to produce 
Organic Life from Inorganic Matter. — The Crucial Point at 
the Beginning of Organic Life. — Natural Selection the The- 
ory of Chance. — Lamarck's Theory of Appetency. — Darwin's 
Contempt for Lamarck because his Theory presupposed Intel- 
ligence as the Cause of Organism. — " It implies Necessary 
Progression." — "A Wretched Book." — Darwin's Private Re- 
ligious Views. — Lamarck's Theory complementary to Dar- 
win's. — Huxley's Latest Views. — They indorse Lamarck's 
Theory. — Haeckel vs. Haeckel. — The Scientist vs. the Athe- 
ist. — The Moneron demonstrates Mind as Antecedent to Physi- 
cal Organism. — The Monera are Structureless, and yet they 
are endowed with Mind and Life. — A Wonderful Intelli- 
gence. — His Theory itself a Case of " Spontaneous Genera- 
tion." — The Moneron as a Symbol and an Example. — 
Symbolizes the Whole Process of Evolution. — An Example 
of Creative Power, of Control of Mind over Matter, of the 



xxil CONTENTS. 

Page 
Immanence of the Soul in the Body. — Its Independence of 
Organism, of a Law of Infinite Reproduction. — Haeckel's 
Assumption begs the Question at Issue. — It is in Defiance of 
all Facts and Recognized Principles. — Atheism based upon 
Pure Assumption. — The Theories of Darwin and his Follow- 
ers are Atheistic. — Their Facts are Theistic 225 

CHAPTER III. 

THE MIND OF MAN'S EARLIEST EARTHLY ANCESTOR. 

The Doctrine of Heredity. — All that is inherent in Man is what 
he inherited from his Ancestry, Near and Remote. — The Po- 
tentials of Manhood, therefore, resided in the Moneron. — 
Propositions reduced to Syllogistic Form. — The Two Primor- 
dial Instincts as shown in the Moneron. — The Prepotent 
Agency of Physical Development and of Human Progress. — 
A Complete Law of Evolution thus exemplified in the Monera. 

— Thus Progress toward Highest Development follows Lines 
of Least Resistance. — Only Good implanted in Man's Earliest 
Earthly Ancestor. — What is Instinct? — Atheistic Theories 
considered. — Herbert Spencer's Reflex Action. — Romanes 
vs. Spencer. — Facts and not Phrases to be considered. — Analy- 
sis of the Mental Faculties of the Moneron. — Based on Haeck- 
el's Statements. — Sensation, Movement, Nutrition, Reproduc- 
tion, Regeneration, Intelligence. — The Promise and Potency 
of a Human Soul. — That Intelligence comprises a Knowledge 
of the Primary Laws of Organic Life. — Reflex Action pre- 
supposes Subjective Intelligence. — It is a Recognition of 
Danger coupled with an Effort to avoid it. — It never makes a 
Mistake. — The Simplest Manifestation of Instinct of Self- 
Preservation. — The Old Psychology at Fault. — It knew 
Nothing of Subjective Mind. — All its Data from the Objec- 
tive Mind. — Phenomena due to Sensation being prompted by 
Intelligence, it follows that the same is true of the Other Facul- 

. ties. — Mind of the Moneron differs in no Essential from Sub- 
jective Mind of Man, except in Degree. — The same Terms 
define its Powers and Attributes. — Nor can Faculties of the 
Moneron be adequately described except in Terms that define 
Omniscience 258 

CHAPTER IV. 

OTHER GODLIKE POTENTIALS IN THE MIND OF THE MONERON. 

Endowed with Creative Powers. — The Real " Origin of Species." 

— HaeckePs Admissions. — Its Development from the Undif- 
ferentiated Moneron to the Differentiated Amoeba. — The En- 



CONTENTS. xxin 

Page 
ergy " from within." — The Greatest Single Step in the Process 
of Evolution. — The Key to the Whole Mystery. — The Crea- 
tive Power of Mind. — We must infer that all other Changes 
in Organism were due to the same Creative Energy. — It is 
the Constant Force behind all Progressive Development. — 
Huxley on the Innate Creative Powers of Animal Intelligence. 

— The Growth and Development of the Salamandrine Egg. — 
The Power of the Water Newt to reproduce Lost Limbs. — 
These Powers Typical Examples of Creative Energy. — They 
are Nature's Divine Revelations. — This Creative Power by 
Extension to Infinity would mean Omnipotence. — Its Knowl- 
edge of the Essential Laws of its Being by Extension would 
mean Omniscience. — Its Power is that of Mind over Matter. 

— It is, then, essentially Godlike, differing only in Degree. — 
The Tendency of Science to name Things in the Absence of 
an Explanation. — The Popular Belief that Names do explain 
Things. — Illustrative Examples. — The Theory of the Uncon- 
scious. — Hence Learned Talk of the Unconscious Acts of the 
Lower Animals. — All the Facts of Experience show that the 
Subjective Mind of Man is most intensely Conscious. — We 
have a Right to infer that the same is True of Animals. — The 
same Laws prevail. — Subjective " Unconsciousness," there- 
fore, is Objective Ignorance of the States of Subjective Con- 
sciousness. — The Same is True of our Knowledge of Con- 
sciousness of Lower Animals. — Instinctive Acts are therefore 
presumably Conscious Acts. — The Consciousness of a Godlike 
Mind. — Whence came it ? — There are but Two Hypotheses. 

— One is Spontaneous Generation; the Other is Divine Inheri- 
tance. — One is Atheism ; the Other is Theism. — One is with- 
out a Fact to support it, — it rests upon Pure Assumption, — 
a Petitio Principii^ Gross and Palpable ; the Other will be dis- 
cussed in the Ensuing Chapters 274 

CHAPTER V. 

NATURAL LAW VS. " SUPERNATURAL MIRACLE." 

One of the Atheistic Strongholds. — Words and Phrases sup- 
posed to be Contumelious. — A Method of Compelling the 
Acceptance of " Scientific " Absurdities. — Potential Scare- 
Words, e.g. Haeckel's "Supernatural Miracle." — His Esti- 
mate of Deific Limitations. — The Question raised. — Is a 
Miracle Necessary to escape Spontaneous Generation ? — 
Miracle defined. — Facts of Evolution exclude Miracle. — 
Everything happens in Regular Order, therefore not Miracu- 
lous. — To suppose Miracle to be Necessary is to prescribe 



xxiv CONTENTS. 

Page 
Limitations to Divine Intelligence. — The Established Order 
of Nature the Antithesis of Miracle. — Beginning of Life 
necessarily in the Established Order. — Generation of Mind 
from Inorganic Matter would require a Miracle. — We must 
assume Natural Law to prevail . 4 . . . 289 

CHAPTER VI. 

THE ARGUMENT FROM HEREDITY. 

Facts drawn from the History of Organic Evolution. — The Doc- 
trine of Heredity. — Its Biological Definition. — The Author- 
ity of Darwin, Huxley, and Haeckel. — The Common Ground 
upon which Atheism and Theism can stand. — The Acknowl- 
edged Facts of Heredity. — The Necessary Presumptions. — 
Something to inherit. — Something from which to inherit. — 
The Character of the Inheritance. — Must exist actually or 
potentially in the Ancestor. — May differ in Degree, but not in 
Kind. — Man inherits from his Lower Ancestry back to the 
Moneron. — Whence the Intelligence of the Moneron ? — The 
Law of Heredity presupposes an Ancestor. — Atheism says, 
" This is an Exception to the General Law." — Theism replies 
that Laws of Nature do not admit of Exceptions. — The Issue 
systematically examined. — The Necessity of going back to the 
Beginning of Organic Life. — (1) The Issue: Spontaneous 
Generation or Inheritance. — (2) The Facts agreed upon: 
(a) Potentials of Manhood in the Moneron — (b) Faculties 
acquired only by Inheritance — (c) Antecedent Intelligence 
presupposed — (d) Failure of Experimental Attempts to gen- 
erate Life from Inorganic Matter — (e) Monera Destitute of 
Structural Organism — (f) Nevertheless endowed with a Mind 

— (g) Developed into a Structural Organism — (h) Moneron's 
Mind antedated its Physical Organism. — 3. What Facts sup- 
port Theory of Spontaneous Generation ? — Confessedly all 
Facts are against it. — Experimental Failures. — Quality of 
Evidence considered. — Negative Evidence not the Best. — 
But a Hypothesis without one Fact to support it is a Logical 
Absurdity. — Hypothesis Valid only when sustained by all 
Facts. — Otherwise no Constancy in Nature. — Atheistic Hy- 
pothesis Unique. — Has no Parallel in Bald, Unreasoning 
Assumption. — Reasons for Atheist's Attitude. — Doctrine of 
Evolution disproved Theory of Special Creations. — Hence 
he "said in his Heart, There is no God." — Hence Necessity 
for inventing a Hypothesis. — Paralleled only by that of Topsy. 

— Haeckel's Statement of the Issue. — Spontaneous Genera- 
tion or " Supernatural Miracle." — Equivalent to Spontaneous 



CONTENTS. xxv 

Page 
Generation or Divine Agency. — The Latter the Real Issue. — 
No Other Possible. — One is True and the Other False. — 
Logical Conditions considered. — Facts in Support of Heredi- 
tary Hypothesis next in Order 295 



CHAPTER VII. 

THE ARGUMENT FROM HEREDITY (CONTINUED). 

The Character of the Heritage. — If essentially Divine, it is Pre- 
sumptive Evidence of Divine Origin. — If no other Source is 
Possible, the Evidence is Conclusive. — No other Possible 
Source has been shown. — Examination of Facts showing 
Divine Attributes in the Moneron. — They are the Element- 
ary Facts of Evolution. — They demonstrate Intuitive Knowl- 
edge of Laws of its Being. — Explanations on other Grounds 
Pure Assumptions. — Begging the Question. — Knowledge 
measured by Actions. — Adaptation of Means to Ends the 
Test of Intelligence. — Attributes summed up. — Intuition. — 
Antecedent to Organism. — Has Power over Unorganized 
Matter. — Creative Power. — Creates New Species. — Trans- 
mits by Inheritance. — Dominant Instinct Creative. — Domi- 
nant Emotion Altruistic. — Potentially Divine. — All Essential 
Attributes of the God of Christian Faith. — Differing only 
in Degree. — Knowledge, Power, Love. — Whence came they? 

— The Question for Inductive Science. — Science knows of 
but One Way of acquiring Faculties, — Inheritance. — By 
Analysis of Faculties it learns the Character of Ancestry, 
and can predict Character of Posterity. — No Exceptions to 
Nature's Laws. — Divine Faculties necessarily a Divine Heri- 
tage. — Atheistic Objections. — " Supernatural Miracle." — 
Objection Invalid. — Miracle cannot be posited on Intelli- 
gence. — Natural Law always presumed. — Electric Phenomena 
originated in Cosmic Electrical Energy — Mind originated in 
Cosmic Mind Energy. — Atheistic Theory a Recrudescence 
of Fetichism. — Mind in Inanimate Matter, e. g. — No Disre- 
spect to Fetich Worshipper. — Lodestone does not generate 
Magnetism. — Protoplasm does not generate Mind. — Each 
Substance is a Medium of Manifestation of a Cosmic Energy. 

— Can One Mind be produced from Another ? — Reproduction 
an Example. — Reproduction by Fission Demonstrative. — The 
Monera indefinitely Divisible. — Each Particle a Distinct Mind 
Organism. — Reproduction a Mental Act. — Inferences as to 
Divine Methods. — The Mind of each Sentient Creature a Part 
of the Divine Mind. — Logical Rules of Investigation. — The 
Law of Parsimony. — All violated by Atheism. — Truth does 



xxvi CONTENTS. 

Page 
not necessitate a Violation of Logical Principles. — All Es- 
sential Truth may be known by Inductive Investigation. — 
Application of Rules. — Logical Axioms : (i) No Effect with- 
out a Cause; (2) Cause always Commensurable with Effect. 

— They are " Universal Postulates." — We may therefore 
always know the Nature of a Cause by observing its Effects. 

— Nature never erects False Signals. — Under this Law we 
know that the Cause of Mind is Mind. — Under the Law of 
Heredity we know its Attributes, — that it is an Organized, 
Conscious Intelligence, a Personality, a Creative Intelligence, 
a Constant Energy, Omniscient, Omnipotent, Altruistic. — No 
other Hypothesis accounts for All the Facts. — If Nature is 
Constant, we know that God is our Father < . 310 

CHAPTER VIII. 

HUMAN ONTOGENY AND PHYLOGENY. 

The Strongest Argument in Favor of the Evolutionary Hypothe- 
sis. — The Analogical Argument from Ontogeny to Phylogeny. 

— Haeckel's Great Work Demonstrative of its Validity. — But 
he was in Search of Atheistic Arguments. — He found None. 

— On the Contrary, he found Proofs of Theism. — General 
Remarks in re the Analogical Argument. — Invalid unless the 
Phenomena and Laws are the Same. — The Present Argument 
Valid. — Ontogeny a Repetition of Phylogeny. — Phylogeny 
the Cause of Ontogeny under the Law of Heredity. — The 
Primordial Germ and the Germinal Cell Identical in Character 
and Attributes. — The Importance of this Fact. — The Later 
Forms of the Human Embryo correspond with the Salient 
Steps in Phylogeny. — The Law of Heredity the Cause of the 
Correspondence. — Evidence Comparable to that of Successive 
Geological Strata. — Man recognizes his Earliest Earthly An- 
cestor by its Resemblance to the Form which marked his Earli- 
est Embryotic Form. — Haeckel's " Fundamental Law of Or- 
ganic Evolution" formulated. — The Debt that Science owes 
to Haeckel. — The Pains he has taken to develop Facts that 
disprove his Anti-Theistic Beliefs. — His Method of accounting 
for his Facts not so Ingenuous, or he has failed to see their 
Trend. — His Invitation to Philosophers. — His Promised Re- 
wards to those who will explain Ontogeny phylogenetically. — 
His own Conclusions arrived at only by ignoring his Facts. — 
Next Chapter will explain Ontogenetic Facts phylogenetically, 
and carry the Analogical Argument to its Legitimate Conclusion. 334 



CONTENTS. xxvn 



CHAPTER IX. 

THE THEISTIC ARGUMENT FROM ONTOGENY AND PHYLOGENY. 

Page 

Professor Haeckel's Premises accepted for more than his Esti- 
mated Valuation. — No Dispute as to Facts. — The Matter in 
Dispute relates to Deductions from Laws agreed upon. — The 
Invisible World not outside the Domain of Law. — All Natu- 
ral Forces Invisible. — Deductions from Known Laws always 
Legitimate. — Facts agreed upon by Atheists and Theists : 
i. Ontogeny repeats Phylogeny. — 2. Phylogeny causes Onto- 
geny. — 3. Heredity the Controlling Law. — 4. Heredity con- 
trols Ontogeny and Phylogeny. — 5. Potentialities of Manhood 
reside in the Germinal Cell of Man. — 6. Also in the Pri- 
mordial Germ. — It follows that (1) the Laws are the same; 
(2) that Pre-existent Conditions were the same; (3) that 
Causes were Identical in Kind. — The Ontogenetic and Phylo- 
genetic Series begin alike with the Moneron and end in Man. 

— Each has Identical Powers and Mental Attributes. — Condi- 
tions and Causes being the same, if we find the Cause for one 
Condition we can safely infer the other. — We know why 
Potentials of Manhood reside in the Germinal Cell of Man. — 
Because they were inherited from an Antecedent Mind, — that 
of the Parent. — Corollary: The Potentialities of Manhood 
reside in the Moneron because they were inherited from an 
Antecedent Mind, — that of the Infinite Parent. — No other 
Conclusion logically Legitimate. — A Denial is a Repudiation 
of all Known Laws relating to it, especially that of Heredity. 

— If Nature is constant, the Moneron inherited its Divine 
Potentialities from the Divine Mind. — This is the Analogical 
Argument carried to its Legitimate Conclusion. — The Anal- 
ogy is Incomplete without it, and therefore Invalid. — What 
does Atheism offer in Refutation ? — Spontaneous Generation. 

— A Theory without a Fact to support it. — An Abandon- 
ment of Induction. — A Guess and a Hope that Somebody 
may sometime discover (or manufacture) a Fact to sustain the 
Atheist's Guesses. — Darwin's Guess and Huxley's Hope. — 
Haeckel's Guess without Hope. — Ward's Guess and Hope. — 
Specimens of Atheistic " Induction." — Nevertheless the World 
owes them much ; notwithstanding a Relapse toward Fetich- 
ism, they builded better than they knew. — Their Facts prove 
the Theory of Evolution, but they also prove the Existence 

of the God of Christian Faith 340 



xxvin CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER X. 

IN THE IMAGE OF GOD. 

Page 
The True Basis of Reconciliation of Religion and Science. — 
Consists in a Truthful Interpretation of the Facts of Nature. — 
There are not Two Orders of Truth, one Scientific and the 
other Religious. — The Old Prophet's Declaration. — Man was 
made in the Image of God. — The Common Anthropomorphic 
Interpretation. — Due to a Defective Psychology. — God was 
conceived as an Infinite Reasoner. — Otherwise an Infinite In- 
quirer after Facts and a Guesser at Conclusions. — The Divine 
Likeness in the Faculties of the Subjective Mind. — Even its 
Limitations Suggestive of Divine Attributes. — The Signifi- 
cance of its Limitations. — Its Faculties tabulated. — Intuition 
an essentially Divine Attribute. — Its Importance in the Or- 
ganic World. — Deductive Reasoning the Concomitant of Intui- 
tion. — They, with Memory, constitute the Intellectual Facul- 
ties of the Subjective Mind. — Extended by Infinity, they would 
be Omniscience. — Inconceivable Rapidity of Subjective Men- 
tation. — Prodigious Feats of Memory, — Illustrative Cases. — 
Dynamic Energy of the Subjective Mind. — Telekinesis. — Ex- 
tended to Infinity, it would be Omnipotence. — New Testament 
Examples of Dynamic Force of the Soul. — Telepathy. — Its 
Significance. — Distance no Obstacle — Infinite Extension 
would constitute Omnipresence. — A Channel of Communica- 
tion between God and Man. — Prayer and Inspiration. — The 
Natural Emotions. — Their Altruistic Character. — Infinite Ex- 
tension would mean Infinite and Universal Love. — Thus the 
Faculties of the Soul, infinitely extended, give us an Omni- 
scient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent God of Infinite and Universal 
Love. — The Highest Possible Conception of Deity. — The 
Conception not Anthropomorphic. — It neither limits nor meas- 
ures God. — His Qualities alone revealed. — But it shows that 
Man was made in the Image of God. — This much Man may 
know of God. — Not that it reveals Human Attributes in God, 
but Divine Attributes in Man. — Man's Place in Nature. — His 
Obligations and Duties • 361 



#airt I. 

EVOLUTION AND PSYCHOLOGY. 



THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 



$art I. 

EVOLUTION AND PSYCHOLOGY. 



INTRODUCTION. 

IT is the boast of science that its only quest is 
truth, and that in its pursuit the inductive 
method of inquiry is never departed from. So per- 
sistently have scientists iterated and reiterated this 
declaration, and so abundant are the evidences that 
they have in the main adhered to it, that the uncriti- 
cal world is wont to accept as truth whatever bears 
the scientific label, and as valid whatever conclusions 
are alleged to have been reached by the process of 
induction. Nor can it be denied that the constantly 
multiplying scientific appliances of modern civiliza- 
tion afford indubitable evidences of the value, not 
to say the infallibility, of the Baconian methods of 
research in the realm of physical science. The mar- 
vellous success of the inductive method of searching 
for truth in the material world not unnaturally gave 
rise to the broad declaration, by the materialistic 
scientists, that no theory of causation, spiritual or 
physical, is worthy of serious consideration unless 



] 
V 



32 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

it be sustained by a series of well-authenticated facts 
that can bear no other possible interpretation. This 
was the prevailing idea among skeptical scientists 
and their followers when Darwin propounded the 
theory that the organic world owed its existence to 
progressive development and inheritance from the 
lower forms of animal life. 

With what alacrity this theory was accepted by 
the skeptical scientists, and how thoroughly it was 
reprobated by the theological world, are matters of 
history. The reasons for the acceptance on the one 
hand and the rejection on the other were, of course, 
identical. The theory, if true, disproved the then 
prevailing theological dogma of special, miraculous 
creations of species in the organic world. 

It was here that the first great, fundamental error 
was committed by both sides. On the part of the 
atheistic scientists it consisted in the assumption 
that, by disproving the doctrine of special creations, 
they had eliminated God from the universe ; or, to 
use the language of Romanes, they had thereby ob- 
viated the " logical necessity for a God." On the 
part of the theologians the mistake consisted in 
accepting the conclusion as a valid deduction from 
the premise; thus rendering it logically necessary 
for them to denounce the doctrine of evolution 
itself. For the time being no one seemed to regard 
any middle ground as logically possible; and the 
breach between science and religion seemed wider 
than ever. 

After a few years had elapsed, however, the most 
liberal-minded, intelligent, and unprejudiced of both 
sides began to realize that it did not necessarily 



INTRODUCTION. 33 

follow that, if the theory of evolution was the true 
explanation of organic life, it obviated the logical 
necessity for an intelligent Great First Cause of all 
things. On the contrary, as the true theory of 
organic evolution came to be better understood by 
its early enemies, and their first crude and ridiculous 
conceptions of it were dissipated by a knowledge of 
its real scope and significance, it became more and 
more evident that evolution is simply God's method 
of creation. With this clearer understanding of the 
subject came higher conceptions of the true nature 
and character of the Divine Mind than had ever 
before prevailed. God was seen to be a being of 
infinite intelligence and power, and capable of creat- 
ing and governing this universe by means of his 
own immutable laws. In a word, the teleological 
argument, or the argument from evidences of intel- 
ligent design, was strongly reinforced by the facts 
of organic evolution. In point of fact, it was found 
that the teleological evidences afforded by evolu- 
tion far outweigh in real significance all that were 
ever before adduced. 

This, however, is by no means the most important 
part of the evidences for theism to be found in the 
facts of organic evolution. It is, in fact, no part of 
the object of this volume to press the teleological 
argument; although abundant facts will be devel- 
oped suggestive of teleological conclusions, which 
the intelligent reader will draw for himself. My 
object is to show that the facts of organic evolution 
afford abundant material from which to study the 
subject of theism by the pure process of induction, 
leaving nothing to the imagination, nothing to 

3 



34 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN 

speculative philosophy. That is to say, I shall 
undertake to show that the salient facts of evolu- 
tion, as developed by the researches of anti-theistic 
scientists, are susceptible of no other than a theistic 
interpretation, without an utter abandonment and 
repudiation of every principle of logical, scientific 
inductive investigation. To that end I shall under- 
take to prove that they have avoided a theistic in- 
terpretation of their own facts, only by abandoning, 
at all the crucial points in their inquiry, the plain- 
est principles of induction, and soaring away into 
the cloudy realms of speculative philosophy with- 
out one fact, or semblance of a fact, to sustain their 
hypotheses. 

I shall show, for instance, that Mr. Darwin's 
great principle of " natural selection/' when consid- 
ered as "the origin of species," is, in that sense, 
without a fact to sustain it. Natural selection, or 
survival of the fittest, is a potent factor in the 
process of organic development, and no theory of 
evolution could be complete without it. But it is 
preservative of species, — not creative. I shall sus- 
tain this view by the opinions of such scientists as 
Huxley, and I shall demonstrate it by facts presented 
by such evolutionists as Haeckel. Mr. Darwin has 
presented a formidable array of facts to demonstrate 
the correctness of his fundamental theory of organic 
evolution, and no unprejudiced person can deny that 
he has abundantly sustained that theory. He has 
also cited a great number of facts which he assumes 
to have a bearing upon his subsidiary hypothesis. 
Nevertheless, it is true that he has not cited one case 
where anything more than a morphological species 



INTROD UCTION. 3 5 

has been produced, either by natural or artificial 
selection. In this sense, therefore, his theory that 
natural selection is the origin of species must be 
relegated to the domain of speculative philosophy 
without facts to sustain it, — the very opposite of 
induction. I shall venture to infer that his strenuous 
insistence upon that theory may have been due to 
one or both of two causes. One of these was his 
hostility to Lamarck and his theory of " appetency " 
as the cause of structural changes in organic life; 
and the other, his desire to sustain the atheistic 
theory that physical organism antedates, and is the 
cause of, life and mind. 

In reference to these questions I shall undertake 
to show that Lamarck's or some cognate theory is 
necessary in order to constitute a complete, coherent 
theory of organic evolution. That is to say, no the- 
ory of evolution can be complete, in the sense of 
accounting for all the facts, if either Lamarck or 
Darwin is left out. For that reason I shall go back, 
with Haeckel, to the beginning of organic life on 
this planet, and prove that mind antedates and is 
the cause of physical, structural organism. As these 
crucial facts can be demonstrated at the beginning 
of organic life, and are not so easily proven at any 
other stage of evolutionary development, I shall 
claim the right to hold that they are typical exam- 
ples showing the cause of structural changes in 
physical organism at all subsequent stages of organic 
development. I shall lay particular stress upon the 
foregoing considerations because of their important 
bearing upon the question of the origin of life on 
this planet 



36 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

The latter is the great question which it is the 
prime object of this book to discuss. Two theories 
are to be considered, and each will be treated with 
special reference to the facts of organic evolution. 
The atheistic theory will first be considered, for the 
reason that it is more easily disposed of than the 
other, owing to the acknowledged absence of facts to 
sustain it It constitutes, in fact, another striking illus- 
tration of the alacrity with which atheistic scientists 
will abandon the inductive processes of investigation 
whenever the facts are against them. 

The atheistic theory is that life and mind origi- 
nated on this earth by "spontaneous generation " 
from inorganic matter. That is the theory, and that 
is all there is of it. That is to say, its ablest advo- 
cates acknowledge that no fact has ever yet been 
brought to light tending to prove that such a thing 
is possible ; on the contrary, their greatest scientists 
have spent years in patient and persevering efforts to 
cause the faintest sign of life to be generated from 
inorganic matter; and each one has been compelled 
to acknowledge his utter failure. 

In a word, I shall show by these facts, with others 
equally significant, that not only have atheistic scien- 
tists abandoned and tacitly repudiated the inductive 
method at every crucial point in their investigations, 
but that all that there is of atheism in evolution 
consists of pure assumption, not only without facts to 
sustain the assumptions, but in direct contravention of 
all the facts of nature and of experimental science. 

The theory of the theistic evolutionist is that evo- 
lution is God's method of creation; that life and 
mind on this earth had their origin in an antecedent 



INTRODUCTION. 37 

divine mind, — an omnipresent mind-energy, — om- 
nipotent and omniscient ; that this divine, intelligent 
energy operates, not in contravention of law, not by 
miraculous interventions, not by special creations, but 
in pursuance of its own immutable laws, instituted 
from the beginning ; and that, consequently, the first 
mind-energy that appeared on this earth was an ema- 
nation, in the natural order of events, from the Divine 
Intelligence. 

In undertaking to establish the essential truth of 
this hypothesis I shall be guided solely by the ac- 
knowledged facts of organic and mental evolution. 
In other words, I shall adhere to the inductive method, 
pure and simple. 

In pursuing the investigation I shall again go back 
to the beginning of organic life, for the obvious 
reason that the nearer we approach to the source of 
anything, the more clearly will the essential nature of , 
that source be made manifest; and for the further 
reason that no one else, so far as I am aware, has 
given adequate attention to the wonderful signifi- 
cance, from a theistic point of view, of the phenomena 
of life and mind as exhibited in the lowest form of 
animal life. It must suffice in this connection to say 
that the ingenuity of man could not devise a more 
complete array of evidential facts demonstrative of 
the divine origin of mind in protoplasm and its 
potentialities through evolutionary development, than 
is found in the monera. 

Evolutionists tell us that the potentialities of man- 
hood reside in that lowest animal organism. If man 
descended from that organism, the proposition is 
necessarily true; and I shall demonstrate its truth 



38 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN 

by indubitable evidences that atheism has not con- 
sidered. In doing so, I shall prove more clearly that 
the moneron derived its mind and life from God than 
atheists have proven that man descended from the 
moneron. In other words, I shall demonstrate the 
truth of their evolutionary hypothesis by disproving 
their atheistic conclusions. I shall not only prove 
that the potentialities of manhood reside in the 
moneron, but that the essential attributes of omni- 
science there exist in embryo. Moreover, I shall 
prove by their own showing that, differing only in 
degree, the moneron is endowed with the creative 
energy of omnipotence ; that to that energy are due 
all the structural changes that mark the steps in the 
process of organic evolution; and that all human 
progressive development, from savagery to the high- 
est possible altruistic civilization, is due to the normal 
development of faculties existing potentially in the 
moneron. 

In the further argument of the question I shall not 
only be guided by the facts set forth by the great 
lights of evolutionary science, but I shall avail my- 
self of their arguments as well. That is to say, the 
leading arguments employed by them to prove the 
theory of evolution will be carried to their logical 
conclusions and shown to be the strongest possible 
arguments in support of theism. For instance, the 
argument based upon the law of heredity, which is 
the chief corner-stone in the evolutionary edifice, 
when carried to its legitimate conclusion will be seen 
to demonstrate the logical necessity of a mind, ante- 
cedent to the moneron, possessing powers identical 
in kind with those actually or potentially existent in 



INTRODUCTION. 39 

the moneron and its descendants. Any other conclu- 
sion involves the logical 'necessity of presupposing a 
break in the line of hereditary descent, an exception 
to a law of nature, a godlike mind without an an- 
cestral intelligence, an effect without an adequate 
cause. 

Again, I shall accept their analogical argument 
from ontogeny, which is the history of the evolu- 
tion of individual organisms, to phylogeny, which is 
the history of the evolution of organic tribes. Hu- 
man ontogeny, being an exact repetition of all the 
salient features of human phylogeny, constitutes one 
of the most conclusive arguments in support of the 
theory of organic evolution. Both ontogeny and 
phylogeny begin with an undifferentiated cell of pro- 
toplasm, and in both cases that cell culminates in 
man. But if the analogy be carried to its legitimate 
and logically necessary conclusion, it necessitates an 
ancestral mind for the moneron as well as for the 
germinal cell of man, and for precisely the same 
reasons. Certainly the analogy is incomplete with- 
out it, and no scientist will deny the proposition that 
science has never yet discovered any process by 
which faculties have been acquired, either in on- 
togeny or phylogeny, except by inheritance. The 
atheistic evolutionist, therefore, cannot avoid the 
conclusion that the moneron inherited its powers, 
actual and potential, from a divine ancestry, without 
repudiating his own logic, ignoring his own facts, 
and abandoning the inductive method of scientific 
research. All this he deliberately does when he 
seeks, in the theory of spontaneous generation from 
inorganic chemical compounds, to account for the 



40 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN 

divine potentialities resident in the mind of the 
moneron. 

When these arguments are fully stated and under- 
stood, they will not only be found to establish clearly 
the theory of the divine origin of life and mind on 
this earth, but, at the same time, to confirm fully the 
Christian doctrine of the divine pedigree of man. 
Having clearly proven the latter hypothesis, I shall 
then venture to reverse the process of inquiry, by 
taking man as the basis and reasoning back to his 
divine origin, with a view of finding what concep- 
tions of divine attributes are derivable from our 
knowledge of the faculties possessed by man. In 
classifying the latter I shall be guided by the prin- 
ciples of, and facts developed by, the new psychol- 
ogy- By this I mean the hypothesis of duality of 
mind, as set forth in my published works. 1 I shall, 
therefore, analyze the faculties of the subjective 
mind of man, as they have been revealed to the 
scientific world by means of experimental psychol- 
ogy, and show that those faculties, by simple en- 
largement and extension to infinity, would become 
the highest conceivable attributes of an omniscient, 
omnipotent, omnipresent God of infinite and uni- 
versal love, — the God of Christian hope and faith. 
In other words, I shall prove inductively that the 
soul of man is " made in the image of God." Not 
morphologically or anthropologically is man made 
in the image of his Divine Father, but psychologi- 
cally. The charge of anthropomorphism will not 
lie against this conception of God and his attributes ; 

1 " The Law of Psychic Phenomena " and " A Scientific Demon- 
stration of the Future Life." 



IN TROD UCTION. 4 1 

for the trend of the argument will be, not to show 
that God is infinitely human, but to prove that man 
is potentially divine. 

In short, the conception of the Deity derivable 
from the facts of evolution and psychology is of 
divine immanence without pantheism ^ and of person- 
ality without anthropomorphism. 

Before proceeding to the consideration of the 
scientific aspects of the question, I shall devote one 
chapter to that phase of atheism which has been 
designated as " agnosticism/' with a view of showing 
that the principles upon which the latter cult base 
their conclusions make a prima facie case in favor of 
the religion which they repudiate. 



CHAPTER I. 

AGNOSTICISM. 

Definition of " Agnosticism." — Aggressive Ignorance. — Mr. Her- 
bert Spencer's " First Principles/' — His Charitable Effort to 
harmonize Religion and Science. — His " Great Unknowable." — 
His Numerous " Unthinkables." — His Petitio Principii. — His 
Dogmatism. — His Statement of Fundamental Propositions. — 
His Lame and Impotent Conclusions. — His " Basis of Reconcil- 
iation." — It is simply a Wholesale Acknowledgment of Igno- 
rance. — It strikes at the very Root of Christian Faith. — It invites 
Imbecile Acquiescence in Agnosticism instead of Scientific Inves- 
tigation of Theism. — Mr. Spencer's " First Principles " Re-exam- 
ined. — A Legitimate Conclusion Sought for. — The Conditions 
Requisite. — The Fundamental Harmony of all Religions. — No 
Real Conflict between Religion and Science. — It is between 
Science and Man-made Theological Dogmas. — True Science is 
True Religion's Best Friend. — True Science is promotive of the 
Highest Conceptions of, and the most Exalted Reverence for, the 
God of Christian Faith. — Science is Promotive of all Truth. — 
There are not two Antagonistic Orders of Truth. — Truth the 
only Basis of Reconciliation between Religion and Science. — 
Science furnishes the Data for the Inductive Study of Religion. 

A GNOSTICISM is generally supposed to imply 
-* * an acknowledgment of ignorance of super- 
mundane agencies and conditions. It is apparent, 
however, that the agnosticism of science, as exem- 
plified by those great scientists whose attitude in 
relation to current religious beliefs necessitated the 
coinage of a new word to express it, can be best 
defined as aggressive ignorance. An " agnostic," as 
exemplified by such scientists, is one who presumes 
to define the limits of human knowledge, and upon 



AGNOSTICISM. 43 

those limits to erect a barrier against all further in- 
quiry. I need no better illustration than that afforded 
by the writings of Mr. Herbert Spencer, who is ac- 
knowledged to be the fairest and most unprejudiced 
of all that great constellation of intellectual stars 
whose coruscations have, as never before, illuminated 
the path of scientific progress. 

Mr. Spencer, in his charitable effort to harmonize 
science and religion, 1 undertakes to mark the boun- 
dary line between the " knowable " and the " un- 
knowable," and to inhibit all effort, of either religion 
or science, to look beyond the limits thus defined. 
The " unknowable " is the entity which he invites re- 
ligion and science to unite in worshiping; and his 
recipe for securing absolute harmony between the 
worshipers, — the soporific agent, so to speak, by 
means of which each is to be lulled into that somno- 
lent condition in which distinctions are not observable 
and opinions are relegated to the domain of " innocu- 
ous desuetude," — his recipe for securing harmony 
consists in a mutual agreement that neither of the 
high contracting parties shall affirm or deny anything 
worth mentioning in relation to the hypothetical entity 
that may be supposed to sustain a provisional exist- 
ence on the " unknowable " side of Mr. Spencer's 
boundary line. 

The things which he invites the united hosts of 
religion and science to ignore are numerous. The 
most of them are cherished beliefs of the most en- 
lightened men of Christian civilization; but Mr. 
Spencer disposes of them all with great celerity by a 
method that is at once unique and effective, simple 

1 See u First Principles/' Part I., " The Unknowable." 



44 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN 

to the last degree, and easily understood and applied. 
It consists in the employment of a phrase that Mr. 
Spencer invented himself, apparently to enable him 
to establish his " First Principles " by a method as 
simple as first principles themselves usually are. 

" It is unthinkable," is the polemical dynamite 
bomb with which he demolishes those refractory 
propositions which refuse to yield to the clumsy 
weapons of logic. And it cannot be denied that the 
" potential energy " of that phrase is incalculable. 
The rapidity with which it has gone into general use 
among a certain class of philosophers and scientists 
as a labor-saving substitute for logic and argument, 
shows that it supplied a long- felt want. 

To do Mr. Spencer entire justice, it must be 
admitted that he never employs it except in cases of 
emergency. But in building up his " Great Unknow- 
able/' he felt compelled to employ the paradoxical 
method of subtraction ; that is to say, he subtracted 
a large and varied assortment of " unthinkable " 
attributes from the God of Christian faith, in order to 
increase the magnitude of an " unthinkable " entity, 
— an " inconceivable abstraction," which he dogmati- 
cally designates as "The Unknowable." I employ 
the word " dogmatically " with deliberation, for when 
Mr. Spencer assumes to designate the Great First 
Cause as " Unknowable, he deliberately begs the 
question — the vital question — at issue between 
religion and materialistic science. If he had chosen 
a more modest term, as, for instance, " Unfathom- 
able," it would have been more befitting the conser- 
vatism and caution of true science, and no one would 
presume to question the implied limitation of finite 



AGNOSTICISM. 45 

intelligence. It is, in fact, not only an unwarranted 
assumption, — a petitio principii, — violative of the 
" first principles " of logical ratiocination, for Mr. 
Spencer to employ the term " unknowable " as he 
employs it ; but, as I shall presently show, the assump- 
tion is not a legitimate deduction from the fundamental 
premise of his argument. 

In the mean time I wish to further justify my state- 
ment regarding the monumental dogmatism of agnos- 
ticism, and to show that I am justified in defining it 
as " aggressive ignorance." As I have already inti- 
mated, the term " unknowable " is in itself the very 
quintessence of dogmatism, for it is in itself a decla- 
ration, not alone of ignorance (agnosticism), but of the 
impossibility of any one ever knowing anything con- 
cerning the Great Abstraction of which Mr. Spencer 
thinks he is thinking. The most aggressive part of 
his dogmatism, however, is manifested when, in a 
mild and roundabout way, to be sure, he denounces 
religion as " irreligious " when it persists in be- 
lieving some of his " unthinkable " propositions ; and 
in like manner stigmatizes science as " unscien- 
tific " when it presumes to inquire beyond the boun- 
dary which separates what Mr. Spencer knows from 
that which he does not know. In other words, when 
religion persists in thinking that which Mr. Spencer 
thinks is unthinkable, it becomes irreligious; and 
when science tries to find out something that Mr. 
Spencer thinks is unknowable, it becomes unscientific. 
Obviously, under the limitations of his environment, 
Mr. Spencer could inflict no severer punishment upon 
the respective recalcitrants. We have, then, the 
spectacle presented to us of the mildest, the gentlest, 



46 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN 

and in many respects the greatest, of all the agnos- 
tics visiting his severest possible penalties upon those 
who differ with him in opinion on questions of science 
and religion. Torquemada could have done no more. 

Mr. Spencer's statement of the major premise of 
his argument affords a striking illustration of the 
axiom that the man who attempts to wage war 
against truth invariably places in the hands of his 
enemy the weapons for its defence. 

His proposition, in its simplest form of expression, 
is that " There is a soul of truth in things errone- 
ous." This axiom he applies to the aggregate of 
religious beliefs, declaring that this general principle 
" must lead us to anticipate that the diverse forms of 
religious belief which have existed and still exist, have 
all a basis of some ultimate fact. . . . To suppose," 
he continues, "that these multiform conceptions 
should be one and all absolutely groundless discredits 
too profoundly that average human intelligence from 
which all our individual intelligences are inherited. 

"This most general reason we shall find enforced by 
other more special ones. To the presumption that a 
number of diverse beliefs of the same class have some 
common foundation in fact, must in this case be added 
a further presumption derived from the omnipresence of 
the beliefs. Religious ideas of one kind or other are 
almost universal. Admitting that in many places there 
are tribes who have no theory of creation, no word for a 
deity, no propitiatory acts, no idea of another life, — ad- 
mitting that only when a certain phase of intelligence is 
reached do the most rudimentary of such theories make 
their appearance, — the implication is practically the same. 
Grant that among all races who have passed a certain 



AGNOSTICISM. 47 

stage of intellectual development there are found vague 
notions concerning the origin and hidden nature of sur- 
rounding things ; and there arises the inference that such 
notions are necessary products of progressing intelligence. 
Their endless variety serves but to strengthen this con- 
clusion; showing as it does a more or less independent 
genesis, — showing how, in different places and times, like 
conditions have led to similar trains of thought, ending in 
analogous results. That these countless different, and yet 
allied, phenomena presented by all religions are accidental 
or factitious, is an untenable supposition. A candid exam- 
ination of the evidence quite negatives the doctrine main- 
tained by some, that creeds are priestly inventions. . . . 
Thus the universality of religious ideas, their indepen- 
dent evolution among different primitive races, and their 
great vitality unite in showing that their source must be 
deep-seated instead of superficial." 

Later on Mr. Spencer alludes to the emotional 
nature of the religious sentiment as follows : — 

" And if the religious sentiment displayed habitually by 
the majority of mankind, and occasionally aroused even in 
those seemingly devoid of it, must be classed among human 
emotions, we cannot rationally ignore it. We are bound 
to ask its origin and its function. Here is an attribute 
which, to say the least, has had an enormous influence, — 
which has played a conspicuous part throughout the entire 
past as far back as history records, and is at present the 
life of numerous institutions, the stimulus to perpetual con- 
troversies, and the prompter to countless daily actions. 
Any theory of things which takes no account of this attri- 
bute must, then, be extremely defective." 

This statement of Mr. Spencer's fundamental 
premise is seemingly as fair and candid as the exact 



48 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

language of a great scientist could make it. Here 
is a statement of a broad fact that every person of 
intelligence recognizes and must admit. " There is 
a soul of truth in things erroneous. ,, " There is truth 
in everything." What could be fairer? What could 
be more conciliatory? Nay, what could be rarer 
than the exhibition of such a broad and catholic 
spirit by a great scientist when dealing with the 
religious beliefs of all humanity? It serves to es- 
tablish mutually pleasant relations between Mr. 
Spencer and his readers, to say the least. It in- 
duces in the latter a state of easy confidence, — a 
condition of " passive receptivity," as the hypno- 
tists say, so that they are prone to accept further 
" suggestions " without critical examination. 

Now, let us for a moment examine Mr. Spencer's 
liberal proposition with reference to the alleged 
object of his essay. His avowed purpose is to 
reconcile religion with science. To that end he 
sets out in search of an " ultimate religious truth 
of the highest possible certainty," — a truth which 
will not only reconcile science with religion, but 
" one in which religions in general are at one with 
each other." 

This statement of his purpose, which is substan- 
tially in his own language, naturally leads one to 
believe that Mr. Spencer has undertaken a task in 
the success of which every human being has the 
highest possible interest. It is obvious that " an 
ultimate religious truth of the highest possible cer- 
tainty" must also be a scientific truth of equal 
certainty, if true religion and true science are to be 
reconciled. But the majority of mankind will agree 



AGNOSTICISM. 49 

that the basis of such a reconciliation, if it is to be 
of any possible value to mankind, must be not only 
an ultimate truth of the highest possible certainty, 
but also one of the highest possible value to science 
and of utility to the world at large in the regulation 
of human conduct. 

This, however, is far from the kind of reconcilia- 
tion that is the object of Mr. Spencer's ambition. 

Now, let us briefly examine this " ultimate reli- 
gious truth of the highest possible certainty/' — 
this potent verity that is capable of obliterating the 
distinctions between fetichism and Christianity, this 
ultimate scientific truth that is the essence alike 
of all religions and of all science. We have Mr. 
Spencer's word for it, that on the religious side it 
is this: "The Power which the universe manifests 
to us is utterly inscrutable/' On the scientific side, 
this is the formula : " In its ultimate essence nothing 
can be known/' 

Considering first the statement of ultimate " scien- 
tific " verity, it must be admitted that it has the orac- 
ular ring of a scientific formula. Moreover, it must 
be conceded that it is a great fact, and a very incon- 
venient one, by the way, that there are very many 
things in this world that, to borrow the formula of 
Lord Dundreary, " no fellow can find out." But 
that great " ultimate truth " was not the original 
discovery of Mr. Spencer, albeit the pains which he 
has taken to demonstrate it ; and to correlate it with 
his " ultimate religious truth " would lead one to 
suppose that he regarded himself as the Columbus 
of ultimate verity and of human limitations. It can- 
not be denied, however, that he was the " original 

4 



SO THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

and first " discoverer of the fact that the two formulas 
are equivalent, nor will any one seek to rob him of 
the glory due to one who has been able to found a 
school of religious philosophy upon that assumption. 

We may, therefore, concede that, in a limited 
sense, his scientific formula is a statement of an ulti- 
mate scientific truth. But by no stretch of liber- 
ality of construction can his so-called " ultimate 
religious truth " be classed even as a theological 
dogma, much less as an undisputed and indisputable 
religious truth. Like his so-called scientific truth, 
it is simply Mr. Spencer's oracular way of making 
a statement relating to the supposed limitations of 
human intelligence. 

Moreover, when Mr. Spencer offers, as a basis of 
universal harmonic relations, the declaration that 
" the Power which the universe manifests to us is 
utterly inscrutable/' he is guilty of that most heinous 
of all logical offences, — begging the question. For 
that is the very question at issue between the Chris- 
tian religion and science — or rather between the 
Christian religion and such scientists as Herbert 
Spencer. The very essence of Christian belief in 
God is that man necessarily sustains a natural rela- 
tionship to his Creator of a most intimate char- 
acter; and that, therefore, some knowledge of the 
Great First Cause is not only possible, but inevitable. 
No Christian has ever denied the inscrutability of 
" the Power that the universe manifests to us," in the 
general sense of the term. But that it is utterly 
inscrutable is a doctrine that strikes at the very root 
of Christian faith, and is an utter repudiation of the 
life and doctrines of the Great Founder of the Chris- 



AGNOSTICISM. 5 1 

tian religion. And yet this is just what Mr. Spencer 
does when he employs the words " utterly inscru- 
table." 

His attitude may be summed up in a very few 
words : — 

He starts out professedly in search of the one 
great, fundamental, " ultimate religious truth " that 
underlies, and is the vital, constituent element of, all 
religions, from " fetichism to Christianity." When 
he finds it and presents it to an expectant world, it 
is seen that it is not a religious truth at all ; that it 
is not a tenet of any religion on earth ; that it is a 
proposition that has never been considered, either 
as a fundamental principle or as a constituent ele- 
ment of any religion whatever ; but that, on the con- 
trary, it is a proposition that strikes at the very root 
of every religion worthy of the name; and finally, 
that it is a statement that is and must be repudiated 
as the crassest atheism by every Christian denomina- 
tion. An acceptance of it by the religious and scien- 
tific world as a basis of reconciliation, on the terms 
proposed by Mr. Spencer, would at once arrest all 
progress in the inductive investigation of the claims 
of Christianity, and reduce the religious world to a 
state of hopeless imbecility. For, be it remembered, 
his prescription enjoins abstention from either affir- 
mation or denial of any doctrine or belief concerning 
God or his attributes; and this inhibition extends 
alike to science and religion. His sole religious 
creed — his recipe for reconciliation — is incarnated, 
so to speak, in that portentous sentence: "Thj 
Power that the universe manifests to us is utterly 
inscrutable." 



52 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

And this is agnosticism. 

The animus of Mr. Spencer's effort must now be 
apparent. In searching for a formula of reconcilia- 
tion he carefully avoided the statement of any prop- 
osition confirmatory of the beliefs of any religious 
sect or system that ever existed ; and in making his 
selection he took care to formulate a declaration that 
is in absolute antagonism to the fundamental doc- 
trines of Christianity. 

Furthermore, while no religious sect can indorse 
Mr. Spencer's creed, still less can it be indorsed by 
science. For if science stands for anything, it is for 
truth. It is its province to search for causes of 
phenomena, proximate and remote. There are 
doubtless, many scientists who are delighted to be 
able to formulate their atheistic views in Mr. 
Spencer's terms ; but there are many others whose 
quest is of inductive proofs of Holy Writ, — who be- 
lieve that scientific methods of research will yet re- 
veal something of the nature and attributes of the 
great " Power which the universe manifests to us." 

It follows that Mr. Spencer's great scheme for the 
reconciliation of religion with science has failed, and 
must forever fail, for the reason that an acceptance 
of his terms involves the total abandonment of all 
that either one of them stands for. Science and re- 
ligion can never be reconciled upon the basis of a 
negative proposition that is neither religious nor 
scientific, especially one that is expressly repudiated 
by both. 

Now, to put Mr. Spencer's propositions into com- 
mon language, the meaning of which can be grasped 
by common people, they may be stated thus : — 



AGNOSTICISM. S3 

To the religionist he says: There is just one ulti- 
mate religious truth of the highest possible certainty 
that you must admit before your religion can be 
reconciled with science, and that is that you do not 
know anything about religion. 

To the scientist he says: There is one ultimate 
scientific verity that you must admit before your 
science can be reconciled with religion, and that is 
that you do not know everything about science. 

It is now quite obvious why it was that Mr. 
Spencer's proposed Great Church of the Reconcilia- 
tion was destined to prove a failure from the start: 
neither party could conscientiously subscribe to the 
creed. 

Let us now re-examine the fundamental proposi- 
tions with which Mr. Spencer started out and see if 
we cannot find a legitimate conclusion. The propo- 
sitions may be summed up, in Mr. Spencer's words, 
thus : " In all religions, even the rudest, there lies 
hidden a fundamental verity," " common to all reli- 
gions," a " religious truth," in relation to which " all 
religions are at one with each other," etc. As already 
pointed out, Mr. Spencer promised to consider this 
fundamental truth, but carefully avoided doing so. 
He specifically mentioned one of the most obvious of 
all the fundamental truths common to all religions, 
— its emotional nature, — and distinctly promised 
to consider " its origin and its function;" declaring 
that " any theory of things which takes no account 
of this attribute must, then, be extremely defective." 
He then dismisses that most important attribute 
of religion by declaring that, as to its origin, it 
"arose by a process of evolution;" and, as to its 



54 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAM 

function, it " must be adapted to the requirements of 
existence," adding, with confessed reluctance, " we are 
also forced to infer that this feeling is in some way 
conducive to human welfare." 

It seems almost incredible that Mr. Spencer should 
have thus summarily dismissed the consideration of 
an attribute of religion which, to use his own words, 
" has had an enormous influence — which has played 
a conspicuous part throughout the entire past as far 
back as history records, and is at present the life 
of numerous institutions, the stimulus of perpetual 
controversies, and the prompter of countless daily 
actions." And yet this is just what he has done, in 
order to give prominence to his lame and impotent 
conclusion which has already been discussed. 

Now, let us adopt Mr. Spencer's fundamental, or 
major, premise as our own, and briefly inquire, What 
is that underlying truth which is common to all reli- 
gions, from fetichism to Christianity? In doing so, 
let us employ the inductive process, and consider 
nothing but the well-recognized facts pertaining to 
the subject-matter; bearing in mind always that 
we are discussing the mental phenomena of reli- 
gious experience, and not the limitations of human 
intelligence. 

Now, this truth, when found, if it is to possess 
any evidential value for any purpose whatever, 
must possess certain well-defined characteristics. 
Amongst these are : — 

I. It must correlate all religions that have ever 
existed, on the well-recognized lines of religious 
experience. 

This is the general proposition. Then, if it is to 



AGNOSTICISM. 55 

possess any evidential value in itself as to its divine 
origin, or as to its natural adaptation to the require- 
ments of existence, pr its capacity to promote human 
welfare, it must possess certain further characteristics, 
namely : — 

2. It must be an instinctive attribute common to 
all races of mankind above those of the lowest grade 
of human intelligence. 

3. It must be capable of evolutionary develop- 
ment without change of its essential characteristic. 

4. It must, in its every stage of progressive de- 
velopment, be more and more " conducive to human 
welfare." 

5. It must, in its highest stage of development, 
be found to be the concomitant of the highest 
civilization. 

6. It must be an attribute that, without change of 
its essential characteristic, develops in power, if not 
in intensity, and becomes more and more exalted in 
its manifestations with every step in the progress of 
science. 

7. And finally, it must be an attribute the impli- 
cations of which cannot be disproved by scientific 
induction; but which, on the contrary, attain a 
higher and higher degree of probability the more 
strictly and the more directly the processes of in- 
ductive reasoning are applied to them. 

Now, this attribute which correlates all religions 
and in which all are at one with each other, con- 
sists in the belief, with which each individual is 
imbued, in a spiritual being, mightier than himself, 
but not indifferent to his thoughts and acts, and upon 
whom he feels a consciousness of dependence* 



56 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN 

It is obvious that this applies alike to the fetich 
worshipper and the Christian, together with all the 
intermediate grades and varieties of religious belief. 
The difference between religions consists in the 
different conceptions of the nature and attributes 
of the object of worship, the relations that exist 
between that being and man, and the emotions and 
practices which flow from the recognition of such 
relations. 

Now, let us see if this underlying truth answers to 
the requirements above mentioned. 

First, then, it obviously correlates all religions. 
(2) It must be an instinctive emotion, since it is 
common to all races of men above a certain grade of 
intelligence. That there are tribes of savages so 
low in the scale of being that they have no idea of a 
deity or of a future life, simply goes to prove that 
religion is an inevitable outgrowth of progressing 
intelligence. (3) That it is capable of evolutionary 
development, and (4) that in its every higher stage 
of manifestation it is more and more conducive to 
human welfare, is shown by the fact that (5) in its 
highest stage of development it is the inseparable 
accompaniment of the world's highest civilization. 

6. The history of the great conflict between 
science and religion, or more properly between 
science and ecclesiasticism, demonstrates the pro- 
gressive character of true religion. There never 
has been a conflict between science and religion. 
Science has never waged war upon religion. It has 
from time to time been forced to disclose the fal- 
lacies of various theological dogmas, and a fierce 
struggle has as often ensued. But whenever theol- 



AGNOSTICISM. 57 

ogy has been forced to yield, religion has always 
been the gainer; for every greatly advanced step 
that has ever been taken by science has by just so 
much enlarged, exalted, and refined man's concep- 
tions of the Deity and his attributes. And no one 
will deny that, in so far as man's conceptions of the 
Deity and his attributes have been thus exalted, by 
just so much have the religious emotions of rever- 
ence, love, and worship been justified, increased, and 
exalted. Science, therefore, in the nineteenth cen- 
tury has, in this sense, continued the work which 
Jesus began in the first century. For one of the 
greatest services that Jesus performed for religion 
and for humanity was his express repudiation of 
the crude, anthropopathic conceptions of God which 
had been handed down from the early Jewish 
prophets. In their place he has given us a con- 
ception of God, his attributes, and his relations 
to man, that has served to intensify, purify, exalt, 
and justify that instinctive emotion which is the 
basic attribute of all religions. And science has 
continued the work by revealing truths which serve 
to confirm the intuitions of the Master and justify 
his conclusions. Not that scientists have deliberately 
set themselves to do this thing; for they have not. 
On the contrary, each new scientific discovery has 
been the signal for a shout in chorus that " religion 
has been destroyed, and God has been eliminated 
from the universe. ,, But when the tumult subsides 
it is always found that God still reigns and religion 
still lives. A man-made dogma may have been 
shown to be fallacious; but religion is all the 
stronger for the elimination of an error. 



58 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN 

Perhaps it is just as well that scientists have 
chosen to assume a hostile attitude to religion ; for 
its friends can always rest assured that its survival 
is due to its vitality and not to any lack of aggres- 
sive effort on the part of its enemies. 

On the whole, science has been religion's best 
friend, and the Church is beginning to realize the 
fact. No intelligent Christian would now be willing 
to see any one of the great discoveries of modern 
science eliminated from the world's stock of knowl- 
edge, however determinedly his church may have 
resisted the innovation when it was first promul- 
gated. No Roman Catholic would now consent to 
a return to the Ptolemaic system of astronomy, al- 
though his church fought the Copernican system 
for more than two hundred years. No Protestant 
would willingly consent to the elimination of the 
Newtonian theorem from the world's stock of science, 
although, as Luther had reviled Copernicus, so did 
his successors denounce Newton because "he sub- 
stituted gravity for Providence." 1 No intelligent 
Christian would now consent to part with his knowl- 
edge of geology, notwithstanding the rudeness of his 
first awakening from the poetic dream of a six-day 
creation. And so with the law of evolution. There 
are few Christians among those who have given 
intelligent attention to the study of the subject, who 
could be induced to relinquish the lofty conceptions 
of the nature and attributes of the Deity, growing 
out of the contemplation of the infinite wisdom and 
power displayed in the great law of progressive 

1 See White's " Warfare of Science with Theology/' Vol. I. pp. 
1 6, 126. 



AGNOSTICISM, 59 

development of organic and spiritual life from the 
moneron to man. Much less could he be induced to 
return to his former crude and anthropomorphic con- 
ception of God as a being of limited intelligence, who 
is obliged to supplement his work from time to time 
in order to develop new ideas or to provide for un- 
expected emergencies. In a word, the intelligent 
Christian of to-day has learned that every step in 
the progress of science, instead of destroying Chris- 
tianity or weakening its vital force, serves but to 
confirm its essential doctrines, and to stimulate to 
their highest expression those emotions of awe, rev- 
erence, and worship which are the common attributes 
of all religions. 

7. It now seems evident that the emotion of 
religious worship possesses a profound psychological 
and scientific significance. It is instinctive and uni- 
versal. It becomes stronger with the increasing 
intelligence of mankind, keeping pace with the pro- 
gressive development of the other useful faculties of 
the human mind. It suffers no diminution of vital- 
ity by reason of scientific advancement. It finds its 
highest expression in the most enlightened nations, 
where it is the life of every benevolent and charitable 
enterprise, — of every institution for the amelioration 
of human suffering or for the elevation of mankind. 
These facts alone constitute prima facie proof that 
the object of worship is a living reality. If it were 
any other emotion than that of religious worship, no 
scientist would hesitate to declare that to be the only 
tenable conclusion. Scientists would point out the 
impossibility of a faculty without a function, or of 
love without an existing object of love capable of 



60 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN 

reciprocal affection. 1 And they would be logically 
and scientifically right; for these are psychological 
axioms. If, therefore, the love of God is not an 
exception to the rule, that instinctive, omnipresent, 
universal sentiment which has existed in every un- 
perverted human soul since the dawn of creation is 
an inductive verification of the fundamental tenet of 
every religion. 

If experience of the past is a guide to the future, 
we are now in possession of the key to a solution of 
the problem of the reconciliation of science with 
religion. There are but two possible ways by which 
this desirable consummation can be reached ; and as 
either one of these methods excludes the other, there 
is but one. 

One of these methods is for inductive science to 
utterly disprove the essential doctrines of religion; 
and the other is for science to prove the essential 
truth of those doctrines beyond the possibility of a 
rational doubt. That is to say, the proof should at 
least be so conclusive that science can no longer 
decide against the claims of religion on a priori 
grounds; so conclusive that the burden of proof 
will rest upon the opponents of religion, so con- 
clusive that no other hypothesis will account for all 
the facts. 

As we have seen, scientists have already tried the 
first method and failed. Thus far every induction 
of modern science has tended to confirm the essen- 
tial doctrines of the Church. Only the non-essential 
dogmas of theology have been shaken. It is reason- 

1 For a fuller statement of this argument, see " The Law of 
Psychic Phenomena," page 408. 



AGNOSTICISM. 6 1 

able to suppose, therefore, that further inductions 
will still further confirm the essentials. This sup- 
position is strongly reinforced by two considera- 
tions. One is that the study of those inductive 
sciences that directly or indirectly concern religion 
has thus far been largely in the hands of those who 
are either opposed or indifferent to the claims of 
religion. The other is that the friends of religion 
have thus far given very inadequate attention to the 
inductive study of religion itself, and much less of 
those sciences which have been heralded as the ruth- 
less destroyers of religion. The mistake is obvious; 
for if there is truth in religion it cannot suffer by 
being brought into contact with any truth in science. 
There are not two orders of truth in the universe, 
one antagonistic to the other. If, therefore, there is 
truth in science and truth in religion, the more 
deeply those of science are penetrated the more 
obvious will be their harmony with religion. It fol- 
lows that if there is truth in both, science will yet 
furnish the data for the inductive study of religion. 
When that day comes, the " reconciliation " will be 
inaugurated, and religion and science will read the 
same Bible and study the same text-books of science, 
and join, in a scientific and practical sense, in " look- 
ing through nature up to nature's God." 



CHAPTER II. 

PSYCHOLOGY. 

General Principles of Psychology illustrated by Facts of Evolution. 
— " The Law of Psychic Phenomena." — Its Hypothesis sustained 
by Facts of Evolution. — A Summary of Fundamental Principles. — 
The Dual Mind. — The Law of Suggestion. — Objective and Sub- 
jective Minds differentiated. — Their Powers and their Limita- 
tions.— Suggestion defined. — Hypnotism. — Faculties of the 
Two Minds tabulated. — An Analysis of the Objective Mind. — 
Its one Faculty Inductive Reason. — Its Defective Memory.— 
Its Dependence upon Cultivation and Ref unctioning. — Its Fac- 
ulties constitute Pure Intellect. — The Mind of Reason and 
Judgment. — Its Sphere of Activity purely Mundane. — It is the 
Product of Evolutionary Development — It perishes with the 
Body. — The Subjective Mind. — It is the Primary Intelligence. — 
It existed Millions of Years in Animal Life before a Brain was 
evolved. — It is the Ultimate Intelligence. — Synchronic Action 
of the Two Minds. — Genius. — The Brain not the Organ of the 
Subjective Mind. — The Dual Mind normally controlled by the 
Objective Mind. — The Law of Suggestion its Instrument. — Vol- 
untary and Involuntary Functions. — One by the Objective Mind, 
the Other by the Subjective. — Exceptions in Deadly Peril. — 
The Subjective Mind is fitted especially for a Higher Plane of 
Existence. 

BEFORE proceeding with the consideration of 
the main questions, it will be necessary to lay 
the foundation by a brief statement of the funda- 
mental principles of psychology, from which some 
of my conclusions will be derived. It will be seen, 
in subsequent chapters, that the basic facts of ele- 
mentary psychology and those of organic evolution 
are identical ; but we will first consider some of the 



PSYCHOLOGY. 63 

fundamental principles of psychology as developed 
by the researches of modern science. 

In 1893 I published my first work, entitled " The 
Law of Psychic Phenomena/' in which I tentatively 
formulated a working hypothesis for the systematic 
study of all psychological, or, more specifically, 
psychical phenomena. That hypothesis was the 
result of more than thirty years of systematic search 
for an underlying principle, which I had the faith 
to believe must exist, and which would, when found, 
correlate all psychical phenomena, and possibly re- 
move them all from the domain of superstition. 
More than six years have elapsed since the publi- 
cation of that hypothesis, and as no fact tending to 
disprove it has yet been brought to my attention, 
I feel warranted in assuming its correctness, and 
carrying it to its legitimate conclusions in every 
field of psychological inquiry. 

For a full discussion of the hypothesis and its 
application to psychological phenomena in general, 
I must refer the reader to my work above men- 
tioned. It will be necessary, however, to make a 
brief summary of it here, in order to make my 
meaning, in other parts of this book, clear to those 
who are not familiar with my earlier works. The 
evidences of the correctness of my hypothesis, which 
were set forth in my two former works, 1 will not be 
repeated here, except where it becomes necessary 
for the elucidation of the text; but further evi- 
dences will be adduced which will in themselves be 
conclusive. 

1 " The Law of Psychic Phenomena " and " A Scientific Demon- 
stration of the Future Life/' 



64 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

The first proposition of my hypothesis may be 
stated as follows : — 

Man is endowed with a dual mind Q 

Stated thus conservatively, the proposition will not 
be seriously questioned by any student of psychol- 
ogy who has kept pace with the discoveries of 
modern science. I prefer, however, to state it pro- 
visionally, thus : — 

Man is endowed with two minds. 

I prefer this method of stating the proposition for 
two reasons: First, because it appears to be true. 
That is to say, everything happens just as though 
it were true; and this is all that any scientist pre- 
tends to expect in a working hypothesis. Secondly, 
I prefer it because it admits of clearer treatment, 
inasmuch as it requires less of roundabout phrase- 
ology to express my exact meaning. The conclu- 
sions derivable from the proposition are, however, 
precisely the same, whichever way it is stated. I 
adhere, therefore, to my usual way of expressing it, 
and state, as my first proposition, that " Man is 
endowed with two minds." 

I distinguish them by designating one as the objec- 
tive mind, and the other as the subjective mind. 

The objective mind is that of ordinary, waking 
consciousness. Its media of cognition are the five 
physical senses. Its highest function is that of 
reasoning. It is specially adapted to cope with 
the exigencies of a physical environment. It is 
the function of the brain ; and the brain is the ulti- 
mate product of organic evolution. This, it may 
be remarked parenthetically, is the mind with which 
materialistic scientists deal when seeking to demon- 



PSYCHOLOGY. 65 

strate, by means of the scalpel and other appliances 
of experimental surgery, that even the soul itself 
cannot survive the onslaughts of medical science. 

The subjective mind is that intelligence which is 
most familiarly manifested to us when the brain is 
asleep, or its action is otherwise inhibited, as in 
dreams, or in spontaneous somnambulism, or in 
trance or trance-like states and conditions, as in in- 
duced somnambulism or hypnotism. Any one who 
is at all familiar with the phenomena resulting from 
any of these mental conditions is aware that the 
most wonderful exhibitions of intellectual activity 
and power often result. The significant feature of 
the phenomena is that, other things being equal, 
the intellectual powers thus displayed bear an exact 
proportion to the depth of the trance (to use a 
generic term) ; or, in other words, the more com- 
pletely the action of the brain is inhibited the more 
phenomenal will be the manifestation of intellectual 
activity. 

Thus far I have not travelled outside the range of 
common observation and experience, especially of 
professional men. But it must be admitted that 
these facts alone make a prima facie showing of 
duality of mind. There are thousands of illustra- 
tions of the law which amount to demonstrative 
proof; but they cannot be discussed in this con- 
nection. It may be remarked, however, that mate- 
rialistic scientists themselves have demonstrated, 
some of them unwittingly, that the brain is not the 
organ of the subjective mind. 1 In later chapters 

1 See cases cited in " A Scientific Demonstration of the Future 
Life," chapter xv. 



66 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

of this book it will be shown that the proposition 
is demonstrated by the facts of organic and mental 
evolution. 

The second proposition is this : — 

The subjective mind is constantly amenable to con- 
trol by suggestion. 

The meaning of this is that the subjective mind 
involuntarily accepts as veridical the ideas or state- 
ments of fact imparted to it. These statements or 
ideas may be imparted orally by another person, in 
which case they are called " suggestions ; " or they 
may arise from the education of the individual ; in 
which case they are termed " auto-suggestions." 
There are no exceptions to this law, although there 
are some apparent exceptions. But it will invari- 
ably be found that the apparent exceptions are the 
clearest possible illustrations of the absolute uni- 
versality of the law. A common illustration of the 
power of oral suggestion by another is witnessed 
when a hypnotist declares to his endormed subject 
that he is a third person. The alacrity with which the 
subject accepts the suggestion, and the marvellous 
fidelity to nature with which he will personate the 
character suggested, are among the most striking 
phenomena of hypnotism. Again, a striking illus- 
tration of the force of an auto-suggestion, arising from 
the education and belief of the subject, is afforded 
by so-called spirit mediums. They are self-hypno- 
tized psychics, and the suggestion arising from their 
education and environment is that, when they are in 
the subjective state, they are controlled by disem- 
bodied spirits. This suggestion is accepted, of 
course, and the supposed spirit is personated with 



PSYCHOLOGY. 



6 7 



the same marvellous fidelity to nature that charac- 
terizes the performances of the hypnotic subject. 

A corollary of the law of suggestion is that — 

The subjective mind is incapable of inductive 
reasoning. 

That is to say, it is incapable of instituting an in- 
dependent inquiry by the process of collecting facts 
for the purpose of reasoning from them up to a 
general principle or law. Under the law of suggestion 
it must obtain its data, or premises, from the ob- 
jective mind. Besides, it possesses a higher power 
than that of induction, — a shorter road to essential 
truth, namely, the power or faculty of intuitive per- 
ception. This subject will be more fully treated 
hereinafter. 

The following table exhibits in condensed form the 
results of a complete analysis of the faculties of the 
two minds: 



Objective Mind. 




Subjective Mind. 




i 


Instinct or Intuition. 


(A 




2 


Controlled by Suggestion ' 






' Inductive Reasoning. 


3 


. 


1 

1 S 




Deductive Reasoning 
(Imperfect). 


4 


Deductive Reasoning 
(Potentially Perfect). 


.-1 




Memory (Imperfect). 

Brain Memories of Emo- 
tional Experiences. 


5 
6 


Memory (Potentially 
Perfect). 

Seat of the Emotions. 






7 


Telepathic Powers. 






8 


Telekinetic Energy. 





68 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

In undertaking an analysis of the faculties of the 
two minds, one broad and pregnant fact stands forth 
in bold relief, and that is that the only faculty which 
belongs exclusively to the objective mind is that of 
inductive reasoning. The other objective faculties 
set down in the list — namely, the power of deductive 
reasoning and of memory — are the necessary con- 
comitants of induction. The reason is obvious: 
deduction is a necessary concomitant of induction, 
for the objective process of reasoning consists in alter- 
nate induction and deduction ; and memory is an in- 
dispensable concomitant of induction, for the obvious 
reason that the latter presupposes facts to reason 
from, and memory is the storehouse of facts. 

It will be observed that these faculties, the con- 
comitants of induction, are shared by the subjective 
mind ; the difference being largely of degree. That 
is to say, they are inherent and perfect in the sub- 
jective mind; whereas in the objective mind they 
are exceedingly imperfect, and depend for their 
degree of development, primarily, upon laborious 
cultivation ; and, secondarily, upon constant refunc- 
tioning as a means of keeping them in a state of 
efficiency. 

Other faculties belonging primarily to the subjective 
mind, e. g., the emotions, are represented vs\ the brain. 
Scientists tell us that every faculty, every emotion, 
has its specialized cortical area. This is doubtless 
true; but whether they will ever succeed in correctly 
locating all the brain centres is another question. Be 
that as it may, our emotional experiences, as well as 
all other experiences that rise above the threshold 
of normal consciousness, are registered in the brain. 



PSYCHOLOGY, 69 

That is to say, each conscious experience creates new 
brain cells, which in the aggregate constitute the 
brain memories of our experiences. But they are 
only memories. They are simply stored up facts for 
the use of the inductive powers. They complete the 
objective mental organism. The seat of the emotional 
faculties is, nevertheless, in the subjective mind, 
where, as we shall see later on, it was located aeons 
before a brain was evolved in the process of organic 
evolution. 

It will thus be seen that the aggregate of the faculties 
of the objective mind constitutes pure intellect. They 
are simply the faculties of reason and judgment. 
They constitute the judicial tribunal of the dual 
mind. When properly cultivated and developed, 
they sit in judgment upon every act of our earthly 
life ; they regulate every emotion, they restrain every 
passion and direct it into legitimate channels. In 
short, reason is at once the tenure by which man 
holds his free moral agency, and the power which 
enables him to train his soul for weal or woe in this 
world and in the world to come. 

It is obvious that the faculties of the objective mind 
pertain especially and exclusively to a physical 
environment. It was evolved in response to physical 
necessities, just as all other natural weapons of offence 
and defence were evolved in the great " struggle for 
life." It could be of no possible advantage as a part of 
the mental equipment of the disembodied soul, which 
is endowed with the godlike faculty of intuitive per- 
ception of that fundamental truth which the objective 
mind must seek by the slow and tedious processes of 
inductive inquiry. It should neither surprise nor 



JO THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

alarm us, therefore, when material scientists demon- 
strate the fact that the objective mind, being the 
function of the brain, and inherent in that organ, 
necessarily perishes with the body. 

It will, in fact, become apparent, as we proceed, 
that the subjective mind is the primary intelligence 
with which all sentient creatures are endowed; for it 
existed untold millions of years before a brain was 
developed in the process of organic evolution. It is 
also the ultimate intelligence of man, for it survives 
the death of the body, 1 and the consequent extin- 
guishment of the objective mind. The latter, as 
before remarked, is a product of organic evolution. 
Like every other physical weapon of offence or de- 
fence, it was evolved in response to the necessities of 
a physical environment. It is specially adapted to 
such an environment, and to no other. Its powers of 
inductive reasoning enable man to grope his way 
through the mazes of an environment of ignorance 
and uncertainty, and gradually to distinguish between 
the true and the false in the realm of physical life. In 
that life it is the most potent agency known to man ; 
for it enables him gradually to acquire a knowledge of 
some of the laws of the physical universe, and thus 
ameliorate his physical condition. In the realm of 
human laws and human government it also finds 
ample scope for all the powers it can ever possess. 
But it is of the earth, earthy. 

Before closing this brief summary it may be well 
to remark that, whilst the two minds are each capa- 
ble of independent action, they often act in perfect 
synchronism. This accounts for many otherwise 

1 See " A Scientific Demonstration of the Future Life." 



PSYCHOLOGY. 7 1 

inexplicable phenomena, those of genius being the 
most conspicuous examples. The specific means by 
which this synchronism is effected, or how it is that 
the subjective mind exercises its power to inhibit 
the action of the objective mind, is not at present 
known. We can only be certain that it possesses 
that power by observing the phenomena; that of 
hypnotism alone demonstrating the power of the 
subjective mind to inhibit the action of the brain. 
Cerebral anatomists have not yet studied the subject 
from the standpoint of duality of mind; and hyp- 
notists are not agreed upon the condition of the 
brain of a hypnotized subject. The old school of 
hypnotists still adhere to the idea that the brain 
must necessarily be the instrument through which 
all intelligence is manifested. As long as scientists 
adhere to that idea, there never can be any substan- 
tial progress made in experimental psychology ; for 
if psychic phenomena teach anything worth know- 
ing, it is that the brain is not the organ of the 
highest intelligence in man, — the subjective mind, 
the organized intelligence of the human soul. I 
repeat, therefore, that the subjective mind is the 
primary intelligence of all sentient creatures, and 
the ultimate intelligence of man; whereas the brain 
is a specialized physical organ of which the objec- 
tive mind is the function; and it pertains as exclu- 
sively to this life as does any other physical organ 
or function. It controls the subjective mind in all 
the ordinary affairs of this life — in everything 
except in matters of conscience and the primary 
instinct of self-preservation — because it is specially 
adapted to the exigencies of a physical environ- 



72 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

ment. This it does by virtue of the law of sug- 
gestion. But by virtue of the same law the subjective 
mind can totally inhibit the action of the brain, 
just as it can inhibit all sensation in the body. 
Just how this inhibition is effected it is not my 
present purpose to inquire. I leave that to the 
cerebral anatomists, who will some day awaken to 
the realization that they have a potent intelligence 
to deal with that is not of the brain. It is probable, 
however, that the inhibition is effected by the 
simple process of withdrawing the blood from the 
brain, as in ordinary sleep. Be that as it may, it is 
certain that the subjective mind not only possesses 
that power, but it can assume control over every 
nerve, muscle, and fibre of the body. Ordinarily it 
exercises habitual control over the involuntary func- 
tions only, leaving the brain in control of the volun- 
tary movements; but in cases of imminent and 
deadly peril it inhibits the action of the objective or 
reasoning mind, and seizes upon the whole nervous 
and muscular system. In such cases feats of almost 
superhuman strength and agility are performed, 
pain is inhibited and fear banished, until the crisis 
is past. 1 

Little need be said, in this connection, about the 
faculties of the subjective mind, as they will be 
dealt with more at large in subsequent chapters. 
Their names are indicative of their functions, and 
all that needs to be said in this connection is that, 
unlike the objective mind, each one of its faculties 
and powers is obviously indispensable to the com- 

1 See " The Law of Psychic Phenomena " for a full discussion of 
this subject. 



PSYCHOLOGY. 73 

plete mental equipment of a disembodied spirit. 
Not one necessary faculty is lacking, and not one 
faculty is superfluous, and not one faculty belonging 
exclusively to the subjective mind performs any 
normal function in the physical life. 



CHAPTER III. 

PSYCHOLOGY OF MICRO-ORGANISMS. 

The General Theory of Evolution. — Too well established to require 
Full Discussion. — The Pedigree of Man stamped upon his Physi- 
cal Organism. — The Three Theories of Evolution : Materialistic, 
Agnostic, and Theistic. — Darwin, Romanes, and Haeckel accepted 
as Authorities for Facts, not for Theories. — Facts showing Dual- 
ity of Mind. — The Brain not the Organ of the Subjective Mind. 
— The Genesis of the Human Soul. — The very Lowest Form of 
Animal Life. — The Moneron. — An " Organism without Organs " 
endowed with a Mind. — Quotations from Gates, Binet, and 
Others. — The " Psychic Life of Micro-Organisms. " — Their 
Habits and Mind Capacity. — Reflex Action discussed. — Not 
Adequate to account for Phenomena. — All Vital Phenomena Pres- 
ent in Non-Differentiated Cells. — Wonderful Instincts of the 
Difflugia. — Romanes on Instinct. — The Subjective Mind of 
Man and Animals Identical. — It is the Mind that is inherited 
from Ancestry, Near and Remote. — Instincts increase with Intelli- 
gence. — Primary and Secondary Instincts. — New Ones devel- 
oped in Game Animals. — Change of Environment develops New 
Dangers; hence New or Secondary Instincts. — All Instincts 
Inheritable. — Subjective Mind of Man the Sum of Ancestral 
Instincts. — It antedated Brain by many Ages. — Brain, therefore, 
not the Organ of Subjective Mind. 

THE general theory of evolution is too thor- 
oughly established to require any defence at 
this time; and it is too well understood to require 
a treatise on the subject to enable my readers to 
understand the full import of what I shall have to 
say in the following pages. The pedigree of physical 
man is too plainly stamped upon his physical struc- 
ture to admit of a rational doubt of his descent, or 



PSYCHOLOGY OF MICRO-ORGANISMS. 7$ 

ascent, from the lower animals. The steps of that 
ascent are too clearly defined in the structure of the 
lower animals to admit of a reasonable doubt that 
the lowest protoplasmic unicellular organism known 
to science contained the promise and potentiality of 
physical manhood. Nor is it, in my opinion, open 
to a rational doubt that the progressive steps required 
to evolve man from the lowest form of animal life 
were the result of an intelligent plan, and not of 
chance, or of a series of fortuitous circumstances. 
There are three well-defined theories of evolution 
recognized by science and classified as follows: — 

1. Materialistic evolution, which denies every- 
thing but matter and motion in the evolutionary 
process. 

2. Agnostic evolution, which postulates an un- 
known and unknowable as the basis and explanation 
of the process. 

3. Theistic evolution, which assumes a God back 
of all, working out results along the unalterable line 
of natural law, and by physical forces exclusively. 

There is another theory held by some, called the 
development theory, which assumes the orderly 
unfolding of the system of the universe under divine 
guidance, according to a divine plan, and with 
various divine interpositions or special creations. 

These are Standard Dictionary definitions, but 
they are sufficiently explicit for my present pur- 
pose. They are mentioned for the purpose of show- 
ing that the theory of evolution which I propose to 
outline differs essentially from any of the recognized 
classifications. It comes nearer to the definition 
above given of "theistic evolution/' but differs from 



76 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

that in not ascribing everything to physical forces 
exclusively. 

My hypothesis pertains exclusively to the evolu- 
tion of animal life, and the concomitant psychologi- 
cal development, from the monera to man. It 
assumes a God back of all, working out results along 
the unalterable line of natural law, but largely by 
mental or spiritual forces. 

I accept the general theory of organic evolution, 
in all its fulness, as laid down by materialistic 
scientists, such as Darwin, Haeckel, Romanes, and 
other great lights; but I shall use their facts, and 
to some extent their arguments, to demonstrate my 
psychological theories. That is to say, I shall 
attempt to show that their facts and their argu- 
ments, carried to their legitimate conclusions, 
demonstrate much more than is dreamed of in their 
philosophy; that their facts prove just the opposite 
to their materialistic conclusions, and that, instead 
of eliminating God from the universe, or relegating 
him to the domain of the "utterly" unknowable, 
they substantiate the essential doctrines of Chris- 
tianity relating to his attributes and his kinship to 
humanity 

The first in order for consideration will be the 
evidences which the facts of evolution afford, (i) of 
duality of mind, (2) that the brain is not the organ 
of the subjective mind, and (3) of the genesis of the 
human soul. 

We will begin with the first appearance of animal 
life upon this planet. I shall first quote from 
Haeckel, — first, because he is a recognized authority 
among material scientists; secondly, because he is 



PSYCHOLOGY OF MICRO-ORGANISMS. 77 

in some respects superior to Darwin, having written 
later than that great pioneer in the science; thirdly, 
because Darwin, in later editions of his works, 
indorses Haeckel; and fourthly, because the latter 
distinctly repudiates Christianity and the doctrine 
of a future life. I cannot, therefore, be accused of 
selecting my authorities from among those who 
would indorse my views. He says : — 

" If we would now undertake the difficult attempt to 
discover the phylogenetic course of evolution of these 
twenty-two human ancestral stages from the very com- 
mencement of life, and if we venture to lift the dark veil 
which covers the oldest secrets of the organic history of 
the earth, we must undoubtedly seek the first beginning 
of life among those wonderful living beings which, under 
the name of monera, we have already frequently pointed 
out as the simplest known organisms. They are, at the 
same time, the simplest conceivable organisms; for their 
entire body, in its fully developed and freely moving 
condition, consists merely of a small piece of structure- 
less primitive slime or plasson, of a small fragment of that 
extraordinarily important nitrogenous carbon compound, 
which is now universally esteemed the most important 
material substratum of all the active phenomena of life." l 

Again, he says : — 

"The monera are the simplest permanent cytods. 
Their entire body consists of merely soft, structureless 
plasson. However thoroughly we examine them with the 
help of the most delicate reagents and the strongest optical 
instruments, we yet find that all the parts are completely 
homogeneous. These monera are, therefore, in the strict- 
1 The Evolution of Man, vol. ii. p. 43, Appletons' ed., 1896. 



78 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

est sense of the word, ' organisms without organs ; ' or 
even in a strictly philosophical sense, they might not even 
be called organisms, since they possess no organs, since 
they are not composed of various particles. They can 
only be called organisms, in so far as they are capable of 
exercising the organic phenomena of life, of nutrition, 
reproduction, sensation, and movement." 1 

Here, then, we have the very lowest form of animal 
life, — " an organism without organs ; " a simple 
mass of plasson, minus even the nucleus which be- 
longs to the true cell, and therefore absolutely with- 
out physical organs. And yet it is endowed with 
a mind, — an organized intelligence. The fact that 
it adapts means to ends constitutes indubitable evi- 
dence that it has carried on a mental process. A 
living creature is a mind organism ; for it is mind, 
and mind alone, that distinguishes the animate from 
the inanimate. A cell is a living creature. A cell, 
therefore, possesses a mind. 

"Unicellular organisms," says Dr. Gates, " possess all the 
different forms of activity to be found in the higher animals. 
Thus the simplest cell can transform food into tissue and 
other metabolic products ; and this is the basis of all the 
nutritive activities and processes of the higher animals ; the 
cell can move parts of itself and is capable of locomotion ; 
and this is the basis of all movement in the higher animals 
brought about by bones and muscles. The cell can feel a 
stimulus and respond, and this is the basis of the sensory 
faculties of the higher animals ; the cell can reproduce itself 
by segmentation, and this is the basis of reproduction in 
the higher animals ; the cell on dividing inherits the actual 

1 Op. cit., p. 47. 



PSYCHOLOGY OF MICRO-ORGANISMS. 79 

qualities of its parent mass, and this is the basis of heredity ; 
in short, the cell contains, in simplest form, all of the 
activities to be found in man." * 

Binet, in his great work, 2 corroborates all that Dr. 
Gates alleges, and demonstrates the mistake of those 
scientists who hold that all acts of micro-organisms 
are due to " irritability/' or reflex action. One of 
the many phenomena mentioned to show the com- 
plexity of the psychic life of micro-organisms is " the 
existence of the power of selection, exercised either 
in the search for food, or in the manoeuvres attending 
conjugation. The act of selection is a capital 
phenomenon ; we may take it as the characteristic 
feature of functions pertaining to the nervous system. 
As Romanes has indeed observed, the power of 
choice may be regarded as the criterion of psychical 
faculties." 

In his preface to the American edition of his work, 
Binet remarks : — 

" If the existence of psychological phenomena in lower 
organisms is denied, it will be necessary to assume that 
these phenomena can be superadded in the course of evolu- 
tion, in proportion as an organism grows more and more 
complex. Nothing could be more inconsistent with the 
teachi?igs of general physiology, which shows us that all vital 
phenomena are previously present 'in non- differentiated cells" 
(The italics are mine.) 

Binet also quotes a very interesting statement of 
the observations of Verworn, which reveal the exist- 

1 See " Therapist," December, 1895. 

2 The Psychic Life of Micro-Organisms, Open Court Pub. Co., 

Chicago. 



80 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

ence of curious instincts among the Rhizopods. The 
Difflugia ampulla, which inhabits a shell formed of 
particles of sand, emits long pseudopodia which 
search at the bottom of the water for the materials 
necessary to construct a new case for the filial or- 
ganism to which it gives birth by division. The 
pseudopod, after having touched a particle of sand, 
contracts, and the grain of sand, adhering to the 
pseudopod, is seen to pass into the body of the ani- 
mal. Verworn, instead of grains of sand, placed 
small fragments of colored glass about the animal ; 
some time afterwards, he noticed a heap of these 
fragments on the bottom of the shell. He then saw 
a bunch of protoplasm issue from the shell, repre- 
senting the new Difflugia produced by division. 
Thereupon the materials collected by the mother- 
organism — the fragments of colored glass — came 
forth from the shell and enveloped the body of the 
new individual in a sheath similar to that encasing 
the mother. These fragments of glass, loosely inter- 
joined at first, were now cemented together by a 
substance secreted by the body of the animal. 

" Two facts," continues Binet, " are to be remarked in 
this observation : first, the act whereby the Difflugia col- 
lects the materials for providing the young individual with 
a case, is an act of preadaptation to an end not present, 
but remote ; this act, therefore, has all the marks of an 
instinct. Further, the instinct of the Difflugia exhibits 
great precision ; for the Difflugia not only knows how to 
distinguish, at the bottom of the water, the materials avail- 
able for its purpose, but it takes only the quantity of 
material necessary to enable the young individual to acquire 
a well-built case ; there is never an excess. 



PSYCHOLOGY OF MICRO-ORGANISMS. 8 1 

" It is interesting to note that the Difflugia does not act 
differently from animals possessing more highly complicated 
organizations and endowed with differentiated nervous 
systems, as, for instance, the larvae of Phryganids which 
form their sheaths from shells, grains of sand, or minute 
slivers." * 

I have made these quotations, almost at random, 
not to exhibit any special order of development, but 
to show that in the very lowest form of animal life — 
in the simplest organism known to science, from 
which man can trace his ancestry, there exists a 
mind, — a mind of most wonderful complexity, and 
possessing transcendent powers, — an instinctive 
mind. This is the important point to be observed. 
It is an instinctive mind, as distinguished from merely 
reflex action. Romanes, in his great work, " Mind 
in the Lower Animals," makes this clear distinction 
between instinct and reflex action : — 

" The most important point to observe in the first in- 
stance is that instinct involves mental operations ; for this 
is the only point that serves to distinguish instinctive from 
reflex action." 2 

I have been thus particular in establishing the fact 
that a mental organism exists in the very lowest 
forms of animal life, for the reason that I propose 
to show that this mental organism is the embryonal 
archetype of the subjective mind in man. That is 
to say, the subjective mind of man is a direct inher- 
itance from that of the lowest unicellular organism, 

1 Op. cit, Preface. 

2 This observation is repeated in his " Mental Evolution in Ani- 
mals," which see, p 160. 

6 



82 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

without a change in its essential characteristics save 
that which is incident to development. 

The subjective mind of man, therefore, is identical 
with the instinctive intelligence of animals, differing 
only in degree of development and complexity of 
organism. I wish this fact to be distinctly borne in 
mind, for not only is it the salient fact in the history 
of organic and mental evolution, from the moneron 
to man, but the inevitable conclusions derivable 
therefrom are literally of infinite importance. 

The steps and processes of this development are 
clearly set forth in the works of such men as Dar- 
win, Romanes, and other great biologists, to whose 
works the reader is referred for a detailed treatment 
of the subject. It may be said in general terms, 
however, that the instinctive intelligence of sentient 
creatures increases in range and complexity in exact 
proportion to the evolutionary development of ani- 
mal life from the lowest to the highest physical 
organism. That is to say, at each upward step in 
the phylogenetic series, new instincts are developed 
to provide for the exigencies of changed environ- 
mental relationships. The process is easy to under- 
stand. 

Instincts are divided by Romanes into two classes, 
namely, primary and secondary. 

Primary instincts are those natural, spontaneous 
impulses that move animals, without reasoning, ex- 
perience, or the intervention of objective intelligence, 
toward the actions that are essential to their exist- 
ence, preservation, and development. 

Secondary instincts are impulses of like character 
to the above, but were originally intelligent, and by 



PSYCHOLOGY OF MICRO-ORGANISMS. 83 

frequent repetition have become automatic. Such 
actions, after being performed for a few generations, 
become as firmly established as the primary instincts, 
and are then inherited by succeeding generations. 

These added or secondary instincts are the results 
of changed environment. That is to say, whenever 
new dangers are to be guarded against, or new wants 
are to be supplied, new instincts are developed. 
Thus, as Romanes points out, " the development of 
firearms, together with the development of sporting 
interests, has given game of all kinds an instinctive 
knowledge of what constitutes ' safe distance/ as 
every sportsman can testify." 1 Romanes then quotes 
from a paper on " Hereditary Instinct " by Andrew 
Knight, as follows : — 

" I have witnessed, within the period above mentioned, 
of nearly sixty years, a very great change in the habits of 
the woodcock. In the first part of that time, when it had 
recently arrived in the autumn it was very tame ; it usually 
chuckled when disturbed, and took only a very short flight. 
It is now, and has been during many years, comparatively 
a very wild bird, which generally rises in silence, and takes 
a comparatively long flight, excited, I conceive, by increased 
hereditary fear of man." 2 

It has also been noted by sportsmen that game 
animals keep pace with the increased range and effec- 
tiveness of modern firearms. What was a safe distance 
fifty years ago is within easy range of modern weapons ; 
but game animals have already learned the limits of 

1 Mental Evolution in Animals, p. 197. 

2 Phil. Trans., 1837, p. 369. 



84 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

the new range, and consequently " make themselves 
scarce " within its radius. 

These are but samples of the vast number of illus- 
trations of the principle involved ; but they serve to 
show how new instincts are acquired and old ones 
modified with every change of environment, and with 
every step forward in the process of evolutionary 
development of animal life and intelligence. It is 
easy to see that, in the course of that development 
from the moneron to man, the mental organism thus 
developed must have become wonderfully complex, 
even before man appeared upon the stage of being. 
And when we remember that man inherited this al- 
ready complex mental organism, and has since con- 
tinued to develop it in a constantly increasing ratio, 
it is easy to understand that a godlike mental organ- 
ism necessarily resulted ; and this we find in the 
subjective mind of man. 

Now, there are two things which must be distinctly 
borne in mind in this connection : — 

The first is that all instincts are transmitted by in- 
heritance from one generation to another from the 
lowest to the highest physical and mental organism. 
This is the shibboleth of science. This is especially 
insisted upon by those scientists who imagine that a 
demonstration of its truth eliminates God from the 
universe. I accept their premises, but not their con- 
clusions, as I shall show hereinafter. I accept their 
premises because they are demonstrably true. I 
reject their conclusions because they are demon- 
strably untrue. 

It is true that instincts are transmitted by inherit- 
ance; and as Darwin, Romanes, and others have 



PSYCHOLOGY OF MICRO-ORGANISMS. 85 

clearly shown, it is true of both primary and second- 
ary instincts. Were it not true of primary instincts, 
animal life would have become extinct before it 
passed beyond the primordial germ in the line of 
development. Were it not true of secondary instincts, 
progressive development would have been confined 
within very narrow limits; for it was by that means 
that the species was enabled to profit by the new 
experiences of individuals, incident to changing envi- 
ronment. Hence it is that the subjective mind of 
man represents the sum of all the useful instinctive 
knowledge possessed by its ancestry, near and re- 
mote, beginning with the lowest unicellular organism 
known to science. 

The second proposition which I desire my readers 
to bear in mind is that this mental organism began 
its earthly career millions of years before a brain was 
evolved in the process of organic evolution. In fact, 
according to the best authorities, the archilithic 
period, or primordial epoch, which was the age of 
skull-less animals, consumed considerably more than 
one-half of all the years that have elapsed since the 
advent of organic life on this planet. Thus, Haeckel * 
estimates the comparative length of the archilithic 
epoch as 53.6 per cent of the whole. During this 
period the lowest vertebrates appeared, but a brain 
was not evolved until a later epoch. 

It will thus be seen that the primary intelligence 
of sentient life, the instinctive mind, the mental organ- 
ism that has since developed into that godlike intel- 
ligence which we now recognize as the subjective 
mind of man, existed and performed its functions 

1 The Evolution of Man, vol. ii. pp. 11-18. 



86 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OE MAN. 

with unerring prescience, without the aid of a brain 
structure, for untold millions of years. We have, 
therefore, the strongest possible a priori grounds for 
assuming that the brain is not now, and never has 
been, the organ of the subjective mind ; and if the 
a posteriori proofs all conspire to confirm that hy- 
pothesis, we can safely draw the most momentous 
conclusions therefrom. 



CHAPTER IV. 

EVOLUTION AND THE SUBJECTIVE MIND. 

The Brain not the Organ of the Subjective Mind. — Proven by its 
Identity with the Instinctive Minds of Animals. — The Latter 
proven by its Continuity from Lowest Organisms up to Man. — 
Continuity proven by Comparative Analysis of Faculties and 
Functions. — Instinct in Lower Animals Identical with Intuition 
in Man. — Its Definition. — The Deductive Faculty potentially Per- 
fect in Subjective Minds of Animals as well as Men. — The Emo- 
tions are Faculties of the Subjective Minds of Men and Animals 
alike. — They antedated the Brain. — Objective Mind is Emotion- 
less. — Induction and Concomitant Memories, its only Functions 
or Faculties. — Telepathy a Power of the Subjective Mind. — 
It exists potentially in Animals. — Telekinesis a Subjective 
Power. — It is the Power that enabled Jesus and Peter to walk 
upon the Water. — It reappears in so-called Spirit Phenomena. — 
The Mysterious Motility of the Polycystids. — Science cannot 
explain it under Physical Laws. — All Subjective Powers derived 
from Lower Animals, beginning with the Unicellular Organisms. 
— Further Proof by Experimental Surgery. — Scientific Search 
for a Soul with a Scalpel. — Materialistic Arguments from Cere- 
bral Anatomy disproved. — They have searched in the Wrong 
Place for the Soul. — The Soul is Immanent in the Body, not 
Inherent in it. —Proofs from Voluntary and Involuntary Muscles 
and Functions. — Time Reaction Different in the Two Minds. — 
Phenomena when Death approaches. — Subjective Mind grows 
Stronger as Objective Mind grows Weaker. — Strongest Manifes- 
tations in the Hour of Death, after Brain has ceased to act. — 
Death-Bed Scene when Governor Matthews passed away. — 
The Physician's Testimony. — The Wonderful Power of Sugges- 
tion then exhibited. — Proofs from Experimental Hypnotism. — 
The Phenomena of Amnesia a Crucial Test. — Spontaneous 
Somnambulism. — Proofs from Phenomena of Dreams. 

TJEFORE proceeding to recite the facts demon- 
-"-* strative of the proposition that the brain is not 
the organ of the subjective mind, we must first show 



88 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

that the instinctive mind of the lower animals is 
identical with the subjective mind of man. The 
fact of continuity alone, if it can be shown with 
reasonable certainty, is presumptive evidence of the 
truth of the proposition ; for it would require a vio- 
lent stretch of the imagination to conceive the idea 
that an organized intelligence, once located in a 
physical structure and performing its functions inde- 
pendently of specialized physical organs, could sud- 
denly change its method and organ of manifestation. 
At least it would require the strongest kind of affirm- 
ative evidence to substantiate the proposition. 

Referring now to the table in Chapter II., in which 
the faculties of the two minds are differentiated, it will 
be seen that that of intuitive perception heads the 
list of faculties of the subjective mind. I think no 
one will dispute the proposition that this faculty in 
man is identical with what is known in general terms 
as instinct in the lower animals. It performs the 
same functions in both, the difference being one of 
degree and not of kind; and they may, therefore, 
be defined in the same terms. I define the faculty 
as follows : — 

Instinct, or intuition, is the faculty possessed by 
each sentient being, in proportion to its development 
and in harmony with its environment, to perceive 
or apprehend, antecedent to and independently of 
reason, experience, or instruction, those laws of 
nature which pertain to the well-being of the individ- 
ual and of the species to which it belongs. 

Instinct in the lower animals, as every one is aware, 
is chiefly concerned in the preservation of the life of 
the individual and the promotion of the welfare of the 



EVOLUTION AND THE SUBJECTIVE MIND. 89 

species ; and as I shall endeavor to show later on, 
the higher manifestation of the same faculty in man 
is promotive of the same general object, the differ- 
ence consisting in its higher aims and ever-broaden- 
ing altruism. For the present it is sufficient to 
remark that the objective mind possesses no faculty 
akin to instinct or intuition. The faculty of induc- 
tive reasoning, as we have already seen, is the only 
distinctive faculty possessed by the objective mind, 
and that is the very opposite of intuition. 

I'he next faculty on the list is that of deduction, 
which is potentially perfect in the subjective mind. 
Inerrant deduction is the instinctive logic of the sub- 
jective mind ; and this is as true of the lower animals 
as it is of man. It is the concomitant of intuition in 
the subjective mind, and of induction in the objective 
mind. That is to say, both induction and intuition 
deal with general laws; the one by the slow and 
laborious process of gathering facts of experience, 
and the other by immediate perception, antecedent 
to experience and independent of reason. Deduc- 
tion is the faculty which reasons from general laws or 
principles to all legitimate conclusions; and it is, 
therefore, the concomitant of both induction and 
intuition. Induction, depending as it does upon 
laborious cultivation for whatever degree of effi- 
ciency it may possess, is necessarily imperfect; and 
hence the imperfection of its concomitant faculty, 
deduction. On the other hand, instinct, or intuition, 
is potentially perfect, and it is, moreover, inherent in 
the subjective mind ; and hence the potential perfec- 
tion of the deductive powers of the subjective mind 
in every phase of its activity, from the lowest to the 



90 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

highest mental organism, especially when the activity 
of the brain is totally inhibited. 

The next on the list are the emotions. These 
obviously belong wholly to the subjective mind, since 
they are a direct inheritance from the lower animals, 
including, of course, all that existed before a brain 
was evolved. It is almost superfluous to add, in this 
connection, that the " animal passions and propen- 
sities " thus inherited, when regulated, elevated, and 
purified by reason and conscience, contain the prom- 
ise and potency of all that is capable of imparting 
happiness and joy to the soul of man in this world or 
the world to come. There is no valid reason for sup- 
posing that the objective mind experiences any emo- 
tion whatever. Scientists tell us that every emotion, 
as well as every faculty, has its special cortical area 
or compartment. This may be, and doubtless is, 
true; but it does not follow that the emotions, as 
such, are felt by the objective mind. On the con- 
trary, there is every reason to suppose that the brain 
merely registers the conscious emotional experiences 
of the subjective mind. That is to say, new brain 
cells are created for every conscious experience of 
the individual, emotional or otherwise, and these cells 
are the receptacles of brain memories. But they are 
only memories. The seat of the emotions is, never- 
theless, in the subjective mind, where it was located 
aeons before a brain was developed in the process of 
organic evolution. 

The next on the list is telepathy. There are many 
who hold that telepathy is largely employed by 
animals to supply their deficiencies in oral means 
of communication. I have not sufficiently investi- 



EVOLUTION AND THE SUBJECTIVE MIND. 9 1 

gated this question to warrant me in expressing a 
decided opinion whether animals communicate with 
each other by that means or not. But I have con- 
ducted a series of experiments which convince me 
that, under favorable conditions, man may influence 
certain domestic animals telepathically in a very 
marked degree. Be that as it may, certain it is 
that telepathy is a faculty of the subjective mind 
of man, and the power must therefore have existed, 
potentially, in that of his ancestry, near and remote. 
It is also certain that the objective mind of man 
possesses no power akin to telepathy. 

Of telekinetic energy little need be said in this 
immediate connection. It is the power of produc- 
ing motion in ponderable bodies without physical 
contact or connection. It is that power which is 
sometimes manifested in so-called spirit phenomena, 
such as table-lifting, rapping, slate-writing, et hoc 
genus omne. It is that power which is sometimes 
manifested in the levitation of the body of the 
psychic. It is that power which enabled Jesus 
and Peter to walk upon the water. It is manifestly 
a power of the subjective mind, for no such energy 
has ever been manifested in the objective mind. 
There is no evidence clearly demonstrative that it 
is possessed by any of the animal kingdom lower 
than man ; although certain animals possess a mys- 
terious energy that material science has never been 
able to account for. For instance, what is that 
w r onderful energy that enables certain birds to fly 
directly against a strong wind without the slightest 
visible motion of their wings? Again, what is that 
mysterious power that enables pertain micro-organ- 



92 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

isms to propel themselves through a liquid in the 
absence of physical organs of locomotion? Speak- 
ing of this subject, Binet 1 has this to say: — 

" The Polycystids have a very peculiar manner of moving ; 
the motion is one of perfect translation, uniform and 
rectilinear ; the animal seems to slide all of a piece over 
the object plate ; it can go to the right, to the left, stay 
its motion and resume it again ; it is free in directing its 
movements. Now, during this movement nothing can be 
seen to take place in the body from within or without. 
An analogous phenomenon is to be observed in the 
Diatomes. Some scientists have wished to explain the 
mysterious motion by translation executed by the Gre- 
garines, as being due to an imperceptible undulation of 
the sarcode ; but if there was any undulation whatever, 
one ought to observe a correlative movement in the 
granules inside ; now, this is something that is never seen. 

" Thus there still exists a great deal of obscurity concern- 
ing the principles determining motion among the proto- 
organisms. The theories based upon muscular contraction 
that have been propounded from observing higher animals, 
are by no means sufficient to explain the phenomena of 
motility among certain Protozoa and Protophytes" (The 
italics are mine.) 

Now, I do not undertake to say that the energy 
thus displayed is identical with telekinesis as mani- 
fested in the human organism. But since it is true, 
as the materialistic scientists tell us, that the potential 
of manhood resides in the amoebae ; and since it is de- 
monstrably true that man is endowed with telekinetic 
energy, there is no a priori ground for denying its 

1 Psychic Life of Micro-Organisms, p. 19. 



EVOLUTION AND THE SUBJECTIVE MIND, 93 

existence in the amoebae. We are at least warranted 
in assuming, provisionally, that theory to be the true 
one until materialistic science can give us some sort 
of explanation of the phenomenon on other grounds. 

It is not, however, necessary to the validity of 
our argument to prove that unicellular organisms 
phenomenally manifest telekinetic energy. Nor do 
I assume it to be true. It is sufficient to know that 
man is thus endowed, and that such powers reside in 
his subjective mental organism. That being true, it 
follows that the same energy existed potentially in 
his ancestry, near and remote. 

It will thus be seen that indubitable evidence exists 
in every faculty of the subjective mind, of its deriva- 
tion from the lower animals, the difference being of 
degree. That is to say, the function of instinct is 
the same in man as in the lower animals; for all 
impulses, desires, or emotions which are promotive 
of the well-being of the individual or of the species, 
belong to the domain of instinct or intuition. And 
this is true whether they are manifested in the lower 
animals in the impulses of self-preservation and re- 
production, or in the noblest acts or impulses of man, 
when they are promotive of the general welfare of 
humanity, physically, mentally, morally, or spiritually. 

The fact of the continuity of this intelligence being 
thus established, we have a right to assume that, since 
it began its career and continued to perform its func- 
tions for millions of years independently of a cerebral 
organism, it continues to perform its functions inde- 
pendently of the mental organism which has its seat 
in the brain. I repeat, therefore, with added emphasis, 
that there is no a priori ground or reason for suppos- 



94 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

ing that the brain is the organ of the subjective 
mind. Now, if we find that all a posteriori proofs 
tend in the same direction we may safely assume 
the truth of the proposition to be scientifically 
established. 

I will now briefly state a few of the admitted facts 
bearing upon this question. Fortunately for my 
purpose, the materialistic scientists have themselves 
demonstrated the truth of the proposition by the 
use of the scalpel. Thus, ex-Surgeon-General Ham- 
mond, in his presidential address before the New 
York Neurological Society, showed that certain 
faculties of the mind do not have their seat in the 
brain. 1 In his great work on Insanity 2 he reiterates 
his declaration, and demonstrates by many original 
experiments that the brain is not the organ of the 
instinctive faculties. Among other experiments, he 
totally eliminated the brains of certain animals, and 
found that the instinctive functions were performed 
precisely as before. He quotes many eminent au- 
thorities to sustain his position, and explicitly declares 
that the instinctive faculties do not reside in the 
brain. He declares it as his opinion that they are 
''seated exclusively in the medulla oblongata, or in 
the spinal cord, or in both those organs. " Now, 
those faculties which are found not to be located in 
the brain are, as I have already pointed out, all 
faculties of the subjective mind. 

I am not disposed, however, to agree with Dr. 
Hammond in his confident statement that those 
faculties are located " exclusively " in any one organ 

1 See Proceedings of the New York Neurological Society for 1875. 
a A Treatise on Insanity in its Medical Relations : Appletons, 188^ 



EVOLUTION AND THE SUBJECTIVE MIND. 95 

of the body, much as I admire him for his genius 
and his vast learning. That declaration he doubtless 
made without duly considering all the facts collateral 
to the subject he was then investigating. Be that as 
it may, he has succeeded in demonstrating duality 
of mind by the use of the scalpel ; and that is the 
favorite instrument of the material scientists when 
they set out in search for the human soul. And 
they have cut and carved, weighed and measured and 
chemically analyzed the brains of men, living 1 and 
dead ; and because they failed to find a soul in the 
brain they dogmatically declare that man has no soul. 
Dr. Hammond, however, has demonstrated that they 
have all along been looking for it in the wrong place; 
but as he was not looking for a soul at the time, he 
did not recognize it when he discovered it. 

Materialistic scientists have succeeded in demon- 
strating that the objective mind is a function of the 
brain, and that it is inherent in the brain. They have 
demonstrated that each faculty or sense has a cortical 
area, or brain centre, exclusively its own ; and that 
when one of the brain centres is eliminated or para- 
lyzed, the corresponding sense is destroyed. " Thus," 
they argue, " a part of the mind is forever obliterated ; 
and it follows that when all the brain centres are de- 
stroyed the whole mind is obliterated." Their con- 
clusion is, of course, that there can be no such thing 
as a future life. 

Now, there can be no doubt of the correctness of 

their facts, nor of the soundness of their reasoning, 

so far as they pertain to the objective mind. And 

if that were the only mental organism existent in 

1 Vide Washington Irving Bishop's taking off. 



96 THE DIVTNE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

man, vain would be his hope of a future life. The 
objective mind is the function of the brain. It is, 
therefore, inherent in the brain, and necessarily per- 
ishes with that organ. 

But it does not necessarily follow that the subjec- 
tive mind is inherent in any one or more organs of 
the body. On the contrary, all the facts tend to 
prove that it exists independently of any specialized 
organ whatever. We have already seen that the 
monera are without organs; and yet the subjective 
mind exists in them, and performs its functions just as 
perfectly, in proportion to its stage of development, 
as it does in the most highly organized human being. 
Again, the facts of telekinesis demonstrate the propo- 
sition that the subjective mind can exercise complete 
control over unorganized matter. 

These facts are profoundly significant, and point 
unmistakably to the conclusion that the soul is a self- 
existent entity and does not inhere in any organ of 
the body which it inhabits. In other words, the soul 
is imrnanefit, that is, indwelling, in the body, just as 
God is immanent in the physical universe, but not in- 
herent in it. That is to say, as God does not depend 
upon the existence of the physical universe for the 
continuance of his own existence, neither is the exist- 
ence of the soul dependent upon that of the body. 

Upon no other hypothesis can the immortality of 
the soul be scientifically or logically predicated ; and 
I repeat, therefore, and state it as a scientific prop- 
osition, that the soul is immanent^ and not inherent y 
in the body. 

It follows that the mind of the soul, or subjective 
mind, does not inhere in any special organ or organs 



EVOLUTION AND THE SUBJECTIVE MIND. 97 

of the body ; although it employs those organs in 
phenomenally manifesting itself. It seems extremely 
probable that it pervades every bone, muscle, sinew, 
fibre, and tissue of the body. Certain it is that it is 
potentially able to control them all, and this is one of 
the evidences of its immanence in every part of the 
body. 

It is well known that it habitually controls the in- 
voluntary muscles and functions ; and that the object- 
ive mind, through the brain and the nerve ganglia 
connected therewith, normally controls the voluntary 
muscles and functions of the physical organism. 
The subjective mind has, therefore, normally the 
greater part of the work to do ; for its domain ex- 
tends from the centre to the circumference, — from 
the action of the heart to the metabolism of every 
cell of which the whole body is composed. 

Now, a very important and significant fact in this 
connection is that the functions of the two minds are 
not mutually interchangeable. Thus, the objective 
mind cannot, of its own volition, move one purely 
involuntary muscle. Reciprocity, or joint control, is 
possible only in the mixed muscles, such as the 
sphincters and the organs of respiration. But of the 
purely involuntary muscles the objective mind has 
no direct, volitional control. On the other hand, the 
subjective mind can, and often does, take entire con- 
trol of the whole body, and wields it at its will. This 
can be brought about experimentally by means of 
hypnotism. That is to say, when the brain functions 
are entirely inhibited, the subjective mind can be 
made to dominate the whole physical system. It 
almost invariably occurs when the body is in immi- 

7 



98 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN 

nent and deadly peril. In such a crisis the objective 
senses are benumbed, the brain ceases to act, and a 
condition of anaesthesia supervenes; but, under the 
control of the subjective mind, the body acts with 
preternatural rapidity and precision, and feats of 
strength are performed that would be absolutely im- 
possible under normal conditions. 1 Spontaneous 
somnambulism furnishes many familiar illustrations 
of subjective control over both the voluntary and the 
involuntary muscular and nervous systems. 

I have cited these well-known facts for the purpose 
of showing how much more intimate and pervasive 
must be the connection between the subjective mind 
and the body than that which obtains between the 
objective mind and the body. The one controls the 
whole body without reference to specialized organs, 
and the other is limited in its sphere of activity, and 
depends upon a highly specialized physical organ — 
the brain — for whatever efficiency it may possess in 
its limited domain. The subjective mind, as shown 
in its phylogenetic history, acts with equal efficiency 
in a highly specialized organism, with the functions 
of the brain in total abeyance, as in hypnotism ; or 
in a crude physical organism, destitute of a brain, as 
in the animals of the archilithic epoch, or in animals 
destitute of any physical organs whatever, as in the 
monera. 

The difference being thus provisionally established, 
we might reasonably expect to find that the time 
limit of reaction to peripheral stimuli would be mate- 
rially decreased during hypnosis. I say we might 

1 For a full discussion of this phenomenon, see " The Law of 
Psychic Phenomena." 



EVOLUTION AND THE SUBJECTIVE MIND, 99 

reasonably expect this result, for the reason that 
when normal conditions prevail, that is, when the 
objective mind is in control, and a stimulus is applied 
to an extremity, say the foot, it requires a meas- 
urable length of time for the afferent nerves to 
convey the message to the brain, and then for the 
efferent nerves to convey a return message to the 
extremity, suggesting its removal from the source of 
irritation. It is reasonable to suppose, therefore, 
that if the subjective mind is in control, and if it 
pervades the whole body, the message would reach 
the seat of control in less time than it takes to send 
a message through one set of nerves from the foot to 
the brain and to receive a reply from the brain to the 
foot through another set of nerves. 

Accordingly, we find, from the experiments of 
Professor G. Stanley Hall and others, that the time 
limit of reaction in a hypnotized subject is decreased 
nearly one half as compared with that of the same 
subject in a normal condition. I am not unaware of 
the fact that Professor James, of Harvard, and some 
others, have tried the same experiment with nega- 
tive results. But a negative result possesses no evi- 
dential value whatever when it is confronted with 
positive results such as those of Professor Hall. A 
thousand unsuccessful experiments prove nothing 
when they are offset by one successful experiment. 
I do not, however, regard this difference in the 
time of reaction as by any means conclusive; but 
it is a factor in the problem which is entitled to 
consideration ; for it is one of the series of phe- 
nomena that we might expect to find, if the hy- 
pothesis is correct, that the soul is immanent in the 



IOO THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN 

whole body, and not localized or inherent in any 
part of it. 

Aside from the surgical experiments mentioned, 
however, some of the strongest proofs of the truth 
of this hypothesis are found in the phenomena imme- 
diately preceding the death of the body and in the 
phenomena of hypnotism. 

When death approaches, we find the observable 
phenomena to be precisely what we should have a 
right to expect if it is true that the soul of man is 
immortal, and that it is therefore immanent, and 
not inherent, in the body. We also find that the 
objective mind, on the approach of death, exhibits 
precisely the phenomena which we should have a 
right to anticipate if it is true that it is inherent 
in the brain, and consequently perishes with that 
organ. 

The respective phenomena of the two minds, then 
exhibited, are simply these : — 

The objective mind, in exact proportion to the 
growing weakness of the physical organism, ceases 
to perform its functions in perfection ; and it is 
generally, if not always, completely obliterated 
before final dissolution takes place. Materialistic 
scientists have taken great pains to demonstrate 
this fact, because it is demonstrative that the mind 
(objective) is dependent upon a physical organism 
for its existence; and as that class of scientists 
know of no other mind than that of which the brain 
is the organ, they easily and logically decide that 
man is not destined to a future life. We may 
therefore accept their facts, but not their conclu- 
sions; although it must be said, in all candor, that 



EVOLUTION AND THE SUBJECTIVE MIND. 101 

if the brain is the organ of all that constitutes the 
intelligence of man, their conclusions are legitimate 
and cannot be successfully refuted. 

On the other hand, the phenomenal manifestations 
of the subjective mind become more and more pro- 
nounced as death approaches and the body grows 
feeble; and its strongest manifestations are made 
in the very hour of dissolution. This fact is attested 
by all the records of psychic manifestations, includ- 
ing those of the Society for Psychical Research. 1 
Many instances are recorded of most wonderful 
psychic manifestations, at the hour of death, by 
persons who had never before possessed any phe- 
nomenal psychic power whatever. The publications 
of the Society for Psychical Research abound in 
well-authenticated instances where telepathic mes- 
sages were sent to distant friends, at the hour of 
death, announcing the event and describing the 
tragic details. 

It is, in fact, the ultimate phenomenal manifesta- 
tion of the universal law of psychic activity that the 
more perfectly quiescent the brain becomes the 
stronger become the manifestations of the subjec- 
tive mind. This, I repeat, is a universal law, 
beginning with the lightest stage or degree of 
hypnotic sleep and ending in ecstasis or in death. 
In the supreme hour, therefore, after the brain has 
forever ceased to perform its functions, and the 
objective mind is totally extinct, there is an inter- 
val before the soul takes its final departure in which 
it shines forth with phenomenal lustre, to give as- 
surance to the world that the death of the body is 

1 See " Phantasms of the Living." 



102 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

but the birth of the soul into a higher and a more 
perfect life. 

This phenomenon is a part of almost every death- 
bed scene, although it is comparatively rare that it 
is so strikingly manifested as to attract attention. 
It is well known to almost every one who is familiar 
with the phenomena of death, that, just previous to 
final dissolution, the mind of the patient suddenly 
brightens, pain ceases, and other symptoms of con- 
valescence often supervene to such an extent that 
the friends are filled with renewed hope. The 
experienced physician knows, however, how illusive 
are such hopes and how soon they are to be blasted. 
The psychologist knows that the supreme moment 
has arrived, that the brain has forever ceased its 
functions, and that the mind of the immortal part of 
man has phenomenally demonstrated its potential 
energy, — its independence of bodily conditions. 

One of the most striking exhibitions of this phe- 
nomenon that have ever come under my notice was 
witnessed at the death-bed of ex-Governor Claude 
Matthews, of Indiana, in 1898; and I cannot more 
appropriately close this part of my argument than 
by relating the circumstance. 

On August 29, 1898, the morning papers con- 
tained the following Associated Press report, which 
is as concise and intelligent as it is possible to 
make it ; and it is therefore reproduced entire : ■ — 

" Wingate, Ind., Aug. 28. — At 6.30 o'clock this morn- 
ing at the quiet Meharry homestead, where he was taken 
immediately after his sudden affliction, ex-Gov. Claude 
Matthews passed away peacefully, surrounded by his wife 
and all the other members of his immediate family 



EVOLUTION AND THE SUBJECTIVE MIND. 103 

" There was prayer service, accompanied by the singing of 
hymns, at the bedside of the dying ex-Governor. Mrs. 
Matthews was very much affected, and stated that she 
would give anything in the world if her husband would 
manifest by a single word his faith in Jesus. About three 
o'clock the minister in the course of the services asked the 
dying man if he believed in Jesus. The answer, as plainly 
as any one could articulate it, was ' Yes/ The three phy- 
sicians regarded this answer as remarkable, as all agreed 
that the particular part of the brain affected by the paraly- 
sis was that governing speech, and that the ex-Governor 
would probably never have talked had he lived. It was the 
only word he spoke after he was stricken. He immediately 
lapsed into a profound coma, from which he did not re- 
cover before he passed away at 6.30 o'clock." 

Immediately upon the publication of this report, I 
addressed a letter of inquiry to one of the physicians 
in attendance upon the distinguished patient, Dr. 
Olin ; but as he did not happen to be present at the 
time the event occurred, he turned the letter over 
to Dr. F. D. Allhands, who very kindly replied as 
follows : — 

Office of F. D. Allhands, Physician and Surgeon, 
Wingate, Ind., Sept. 14, 1898. 

Dear Mr. Hudson, — Your letter was handed to me by 
Dr. Olin. He was not present at the time of the death of 
Mr. Matthews. Dr. R. French Stone, of Indianapolis, and 
I were present. He [Governor Matthews] did speak the 
word " Yes " very distinctly, so as all in the room could 
hear and understand him. The part of the brain that 
governs speech was undoubtedly affected ; that was the 
opinion of all the physicians. I see no objection to your 
using my name. Yours truly, 

F. D. Allhands. 



104 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE 0E MAN 

The evidential value of this case can hardly be 
overestimated if the diagnosis of the physicians was 
correct; and it is difficult to imagine how they could 
be mistaken. The hypothesis we have been con- 
sidering, however, affords an easy explanation of 
the phenomenon. The cortical area controlling the 
organs of speech was paralyzed ; and in all human 
probability the whole brain had ceased its functions 
at the time when the event happened. The subjec- 
tive mind was, therefore, active and in control. The 
brain action being inhibited, the subjective mind 
was amenable to control by suggestion, unhampered 
by any possible adverse auto-suggestion. Every- 
thing, in fact, conspired to bring about the result. 
The supreme moment in the life of the dying man 
had arrived. The overwhelming desire of the stricken 
wife to know if he had faith in Jesus had been ex- 
pressed. The religious training of his youth had 
taught him that a confession of trust in Christ was 
essential to salvation. The clergyman's question, 
uttered in a tone of solemn earnestness, and ad- 
dressed directly to the patient, constituted the strong- 
est conceivable suggestion that an answer was not 
only possible, but was expected. In pursuance of 
that suggestion the subjective mind of the dying man 
answered the question. 

In doing so, it simply exercised that control over 
the functions of the body which, as we have already 
seen, it normally exercises in all cases of emergency, 
especially when the action of the brain is, from any 
cause, inhibited. 

.The most prolific source of evidence of the correct- 
ness of the hypothesis, however, is found in the 



EVOLUTION AND THE SUBJECTIVE MIND. 105 

phenomena of experimental hypnotism, especially 
that of amnesia subsequent to the induction of a 
state of profound hypnosis. Every student of the 
phenomena of cerebral activity is aware that all our 
normal mental experiences are registered in the 
brain. That is to say, every thought or experience 
of normal consciousness produces a corresponding 
modification of brain cells. New cells are created 
and old cells are modified, and these constitute the 
physical receptacles of memories of brain thought 
and experience. Every hypnotist knows that a 
profoundly hypnotized subject does not remember 
what takes place during the time of deep hypnosis, 
no matter how exciting and impressive may be the 
scenes in which he has been made to figure in pur- 
suance of the suggestions of the hypnotist. The 
obvious explanation is that the action of the brain 
is inhibited during deep hypnosis ; and hence there 
is, and can be, no change in the brain cells to corre- 
spond to the thoughts and experiences of the sub- 
jective mind. 

The phenomena of spontaneous somnambulism are 
exactly parallel, and the explanation is the same. 
On the other hand, in a state of partial hypnosis the 
subject will often remember the details of his sub- 
jective thoughts and hallucinations ; and the memory 
will be vivid in exact inverse proportion to the depth 
of the hypnosis. The phenomena of dreams during 
natural sleep are precisely the same. We remember 
those dreams only which come to us when we are 
just between sleeping and waking — before the brain 
ceases to act, as we are going to sleep, or after it is 
partially roused to activity as we are awakening. All 



106 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN 

psychologists agree that we are constantly dreaming 
as we sleep ; but the dreams of profound sleep are 
not registered in the brain, for the simple reason that 
the action of the brain is then totally inhibited ; and, 
as in all other cases where the objective mind is in 
abeyance, the subjective mind is correspondingly 
active. 

The foregoing are a few of the many facts and 
observable phenomena which demonstrate duality of 
mind, and prove beyond a doubt that the brain is 
not the organ of the subjective mind. I have felt 
compelled to dwell upon the subject at some length, 
because the propositions which the facts substantiate 
are the basic truths of psychic science. In the next 
chapter I propose to make a brief statement of what 
I conceive to be the office and function of the brain 
as a factor in the grand scheme of evolutionary de- 
velopment of the human soul. 



CHAPTER V. 

EVOLUTION AND THE OBJECTIVE MIND. 

Table showing when Brain was evolved. — Rapidity of Subsequent 
Evolutionary Progress. — Geometrical Rate of Increase. — The 
Neptunian Strata. — The Inconceivable Length of Time em- 
braced in Organic History. — Psychological Lessons taught by 
the Table. — More than One Half the Time elapsed before a 
Brain appeared on this Earth. — Progress Slow up to that Time. — 
Development more Rapid in the Next Epoch, but still Slow. — 
One Third of the Time consumed in the Age of Fishes.— The 
Following Epoch made still more Rapid Progress, yet about One 
Ninth of the Time was consumed in the Reptilian Age. — The 
Age of Mammals occupied but about One Fiftieth of the Whole 
Time. — The Age of Man but One Two-Hundredth Part. —The 
Historic Period occupied but an inflnitesimally Small Part of 
One Per Cent of the Whole Time. — The Significance of these 
Facts. — The Real Function of the Brain in Organic Life. — 
When did Animals begin to Reason ? — The Brain as a Factor in 
Evolutionary Development. — Its Inductive Powers. — Its Ability 
to cope with an Environment of Error incident to Organic Life 
in the Formative Stage. — The Significance of the Intuitive Fac- 
ulty. — Another Plane of Existence its Apparent Realm of Activ- 
ity. — Some Fundamental Axioms. — Secondary Instincts. — The 
Power of Induction in Animals. — Increased Rate of Progressive 
Development due to that Faculty. 

ON the following page will be found a table 1 the 
data for which I have taken from Haeckers 
" Evolution of Man." The first column comprises 
an estimate of the Neptunian fossiliferous strata of 
the earth, with reference to their relative sectional 

1 This table contains the substance of three tables to be found 
in Haeckel's "Evolution of Man," vol. ii. pp. n, 18, 19. I have 
grouped them into one for convenience of reference and examination. 



io8 



THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 



thickness (130,000 feet being the approximate thick- 
ness of the whole). 



TABLE II. 



Fossiliferous 
Strata. 



30,000 ft. 
18,000 ft. 
22,000 ft. 



42,000 ft. 



15,000 ft. 



3,000 ft. 



Total 130,000 ft. 



PalcEontological Periods. 



I. Archilithic or Primordial Epoch 
(Age of Skull-less Animals). 

1. Laurentian Period. 

2. Cambrian Period. 

3. Silurian Period. 

II. Palaeolithic or Primary Epoch 

(Age of Fishes). 

( 1. Devonian Period. ) 

1 2. Coal Period. £ 

( 3. Permian Period. ) 

III. Mesolithic or Secondary Epoch 
(Age of Reptiles). 

1. Triassic Period. 

2. Jurassic Period. 

3. Chalk Period. 

IV. Caenolithic or Tertiary Epoch 
(Age of Mammals). 

( 1. Eocene Period. } 

< 2. Miocene Period. > 

( 3. Pliocene Period. ; 

V. Anthropolithic or Quaternary 
Epoch (Age of Man). 

1. Ice Age, Glacial Period. 

2. Post-Glacial Period. 

3. Period of Culture. 



Per Cent of 
Time. 



53-6 



32.1 



11. 5 



2.3 



0.5 



Total 1 00.0 



(The Period of Culture is the Historic Period, or Period of 
Tradition.) 

The second column embraces a systematic survey 
of the palaeontological periods, or greater divisions 
in the history of the organic earth. 



EVOLUTION AND THE OBJECTIVE MIND. 109 

The third column is a statement of the percentages 
assigned to the relative durations of the five main 
divisions or epochs, as shown in the other two 
columns. 

Thus the reader has before him, in one view, the 
salient facts in the history of organic evolution, and 
the geological data from which the time estimates 
have been made. That they are both substantially 
correct is not seriously disputed by competent 
authority, although no pretence can be made of 
absolute correctness. It is entirely probable that 
the grand divisions outlined may lap over each 
other to a limited extent; but it is impossible that 
they should do so to such a degree as to invalidate 
any conclusions that have been, or are likely to be, 
drawn from them. Thus, it may be that the line 
between the primordial and the primary epochs does 
not sharply define the boundary between the in- 
vertebrate ancestors of man and those of his more 
pretentious relatives who can boast of the regulation 
backbone. Nor is it quite certain whether man did 
not make his first appearance sometime during the 
caenolithic epoch. But a few thousand years more 
or less on either side of the line dividing any two 
epochs does not count for much when we consider 
the aeons that must have elapsed since the first 
appearance of organic life upon this planet. The 
relative duration of the epochs is sufficiently apparent 
in the thickness of the various Neptunian strata to 
justify the few conclusions that pertain to the sub- 
ject under consideration. 

There are two primary lessons taught by facts 
stated in the table that are as obvious as they are 



I lO THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

important. The first is that a brain is not necessary 
either to the sustentation of life or the manifestation 
of intelligence. Indeed it may be said that more 
than one half of all the millions of years that have 
elapsed since organic life appeared upon the earth 
have been consumed in demonstrating that fact. 

The second lesson is that a brain is necessary 
to the rapid development of life and intelligence. 

The table of time percentages shows that progress 
is exactly proportioned to brain development. Thus, 
the primordial epoch, or age of brainless animals, 
occupied more than one half of the whole time. 
That is to say, in the absence of a brain it required 
53.6 per cent of the time that has elapsed since the 
appearance of the monera to develop the animal 
kingdom up to the lowest of the vertebrata. 

The next epoch was the age of fishes ; and they 
being endowed with brains, the rate of development 
was correspondingly increased. But a little over 
thirty-two per cent of the time was consumed in 
developing from them the amphibia and the reptiles. 
It was a long-drawn-out epoch compared with those 
that followed, but it was a decided improvement 
over the one that preceded it. The brains of fishes 
are not very highly developed or specialized, but 
the table of percentages shows that they were a 
decided improvement upon no brains at all. The 
best evidence of that is that they were capable of 
development, and this is shown by the fact that the 
more highly endowed fishes sought fresh fields and 
pastures new by making occasional incursions upon 
dry land. From these were developed the amphibia 
and the whole reptilian race. 



EVOLUTION AND THE OBJECTIVE MIND. Ill 

The age of reptiles, as shown by the table, con- 
sumed but a little over eleven per cent of the time 
in developing the mammalia. 

The mammalian age, in turn, decreased the per- 
centage in a still greater proportion, consuming but 
a little over two per cent of the whole time in 
developing up to man. 

Lastly, the age of man embraces but one-half 
per cent of the whole time since organic life ap- 
peared upon the earth ; and this includes the glacial 
period and the post-glacial period. 

It is obvious that if we should segregate the period 
of culture, or historic period, from that of prehistoric 
man, we should find that the percentage of duration 
of the historic period was but an infinitesimal part 
of one per cent of the whole. 

We are now, in some measure, prepared to appre- 
ciate the part which the brain has played in the 
development of organic and intellectual life on this 
planet ; for we have seen that, since it became a 
part of the equipment of organic life, it has accel- 
erated the progress of evolutionary development in a 
geometrical ratio. It has, moreover, changed the 
original significance of the law of " survival of the 
fittest." Thus, before a brain was evolved, fitness 
to survive was wholly a matter of physical strength 
or development. After the development of the 
brain, sagacity became the most potential factor in 
the problem of survival ; and from the time when the 
most highly developed fishes began to seek safety in 
a new environment, by crawling out of their native 
element and taking refuge upon the dry land 
(amphibia), until man appeared upon the earth, 



1 1 2 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

sagacity has been a factor of constantly increasing 
potency in the survival of the fittest. Man is so 
far advanced in the scale of being that he is com- 
paratively independent of environment, or rather he 
is able to create his own environment ; and physical 
strength is the least in importance of the factors in 
the problem of survival. 

These, however, are trite sayings and are matters 
of common observation. What concerns us most, for 
the purposes of this argument, is the process by 
which this development was brought about, and the 
conclusions derivable from a study of that process. 

In pursuing this study I hope to find a solution of 
several problems that have perplexed the scientific 
mind, among which are the following : — 

First, what is the real office and function of the 
brain in organic life? 

Secondly, when do animals begin to exercise the 
powers of reason? 

Thirdly, what is the potential factor in the devel- 
opment of secondary instincts? 

In discussing these questions I shall first postulate 
certain things regarding the functions of the brain, 
leaving some of their verifying facts to be developed 
in the discussion of the remaining questions, and re- 
ferring the reader back to some of the preceding 
chapters for other proofs of my postulates. 

I assume, then, that the brain is simply a physi- 
cal organ, possessing but one distinctive power or 
function, namely, the faculty of inductive reasoning. 
It was evolved in response to the necessities of a 
physical environment; and the specific office of the 
intellectual faculty, or mind, of which it is the organ, 



EVOLUTION AND THE OBJECTIVE MIND. 113 

is that of a guide to its possessor through the manifold 
mazes of that environment. This intelligence, which 
has been denominated the objective mind, apparently 
does not constitute an integral part of the primary 
intelligence, or subjective mind, although it often 
acts in perfect synchronism with it. 

As I have already pointed out, the subjective 
mind, under and by virtue of the law of suggestion, 
is incapable of independently carrying on the process 
of induction. It has, however, the faculty of deduc- 
tion in potential perfection. It must, therefore, take 
its premises from an extraneous source. The reason 
for this apparent limitation of mental power will 
more fully appear as we proceed. In the mean time 
it must suffice to say that the subjective mind does 
not appear to have originated on this earthly plane, 
nor does it appear that this plane of existence is its 
final goal. Its first manifestation on the earthly 
plane revealed a far higher power than that of induc- 
tion, and the world has named it "instinct." Its 
higher manifestations are called " intuition." As I 
have already pointed out, they are identical, differing 
only in degree. It is the power of immediate per- 
ception of laws or general principles, and it is ante- 
cedent to, and independent of, reason or experience 
or instruction. Induction is but another method of 
ascertaining general laws or principles. This it 
accomplishes by the slow and laborious process of 
gathering facts of observation or experience. It 
possesses the faculty of discrimination between what 
is real and what is apparent, and of estimating the 
value and pertinency of all the facts of its environ- 
ment. Hence its adaptation to an imperfect envi- 



114 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN 

ronment, such as sentient creatures are compelled to 
confront in this world, — an environment that is 
filled with snares and pitfalls, physical and moral, 
enemies to life and foes to progress ; an environment 
of error, falsehood, and uncertainty ; in short, a world 
that is in a formative state, just emerging from prim- 
itive conditions, physical, mental, and moral. Obvi- 
ously the one mental faculty adapted to cope with 
the exigencies of such an environment is that of 
inductive reason, — the faculty of discrimination, the 
faculty that enables its possessor to arrive at funda- 
mental truth by a process of systematic analysis of 
facts and appearances, — of proving all things, and 
holding fast only to that which is good. 

The subjective mind does not possess that faculty 
for the reasons that, as I have before remarked, 
(i) it apparently had its origin in another and a 
higher plane of existence ; and (2) it is apparently 
destined, ultimately, to return to its native realm. 
I shall assume, provisionally, this to be the correct 
hypothesis, reserving the proofs for their proper 
places in subsequent chapters of this book. In the 
mean time it must also be assumed, subject to subse- 
quent verification, that the environment of the ulti- 
mate home of the human soul is perfect. That is 
to say, it is a realm of truth, a realm where no false- 
hood or false appearances beset the minds of its 
inhabitants. It is obvious, therefore, that the faculty 
of induction would be superfluous in a realm where 
nothing but truth is in evidence. Nevertheless a 
faculty adapted to such conditions is required ; and 
that faculty we find existent in the subjective mind 
of man, namely, that of intuition,: — the faculty of 



EVOLUTION AND THE OBJECTIVE MIND. 1 15 

immediate apprehension of fundamental truth, ante- 
cedent to, and independent of, reason, experience, 
or instruction. 

Now, it is axiomatic that nature never creates an 
wmecessary or a superfluous mental faculty. It follows 
that the faculty of intuition, since it is limited and 
circumscribed in this world by the law of suggestion, 
must reach the full fruition of its powers in some 
higher plane of existence. 1 

It is also axiomatic that nature never fails to create 
or evolve such mental facilities as are necessary to 
adapt sentient creatures to their environment. 

The history of organic and mental evolution amply 
verifies this proposition. Thus, the primary intelli- 
gence amply sufficed for the first stages of develop- 
ment, that is, during practically the whole of the 
primordial epoch. This, as we have seen, was the 
age of skull-less animals and seaweed forests. During 
the whole of this epoch the inhabitants of our planet 
consisted exclusively of aquatic forms. " At least/' 
says Haeckel, " no remains of terrestrial animals or 
plants dating from this period have as yet been 
found. A few remains of land-dwelling organisms 
which are sometimes referred to the Silurian period, 
are Devonian." Vegetable life capable of sustaining 
animal existence had not yet appeared upon the dry 
land. There was necessarily but little variation in 
the aquatic environment; and there was nothing, 
therefore, to facilitate or incite a rapid development 
of either organic or mental life. As a consequence, 

1 For a full discussion of this particular branch of the subject, see 
" A Scientific Demonstration of the Future Life." It is incidentally 
mentioned here to complete the present argument. 



Il6 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN, 

the primary instincts being alone developed, the 
process was slow. Nevertheless, there was progress 
made, and at the close of the primordial epoch the 
lowest of the vertebrate ancestors of man appeared 
and a brain began to be evolved. 

// was then that animals began to reason. It was 
then that the faculty of induction became a potential. 
It was a long time before it was so ar developed as 
to leave a record of its existence ; but the time came 
at last, and the first phenomenal manifestation of 
that power that left an impress visible to science 
was when the most highly endowed fishes began to 
seek release from their native environment by making 
incursions upon dry land, and thus gave rise to the 
amphibian class. It was then that secondary instincts 
began to be developed. That is to say, it was then 
that " intelligent acts " began to be performed which 
eventually were " converted into instincts " (Darwin). 

Before entering upon the discussion of that branch 
of the subject, however, let us briefly examine the 
essential character of the process of induction as it 
was and is manifested in the lower animals. 

Inductive reasoning, as every one knows, when 
considered as a distinctive faculty or power of the 
human mind, consists in collecting, classifying, and 
analyzing the facts of observation and experience, 
for the purpose of ascertaining the general law or 
principle underlying the series of facts under con- 
sideration. It is the faculty of discrimination. It is 
the power of adaptation to environment; and this is 
true whether it is manifested in man or in the lower 
animals. And it may be set down as axiomatic 
that, other things being equal, the power of adapta- 



EVOLUTION AND THE OBJECTIVE MIND. 117 

tion to environment is exactly proportioned to the 
development of the faculty of induction. An animal 
without a brain will perish in a changed environment. 
Man alone possesses the capacity to adapt himself to 
the extremes of environmental conditions; for he 
alone has the power to modify existent conditions or 
to create new ones for himself. Between these two 
extremes there exist a thousand grades of adaptive 
capacity, but, as before remarked, the grade is 
determined by the development of the faculty of 
induction. 

The simplest way to explain what I mean by 
induction in the lower animals is to contrast the 
functions of the objective and subjective minds as 
they are manifested in all grades of mental capacity. 

I have already shown that the subjective mind of 
man is constantly amenable to control by suggestion. 
Hypnotists describe the effect upon a hypnotized 
subject as " monideaism." That is to say, the sub- 
ject is dominated by one idea to the exclusion of all 
other ideas that are antagonistic to the one embraced 
in the suggestion that has been made to him. That 
idea is accepted by his subjective mind as the fun- 
damental law pertaining to the subject-matter of the 
suggestion; and he proceeds to reason deductively 
from that supposed fundamental to all the conclu- 
sions legitimately derivable therefrom. All other 
facts, especially those which antagonize the domi- 
nant idea or suggestion, are ignored. This is true 
whether the suggestion is true or false. It is obvious 
that, if the suggestion is false, the deductions will 
lead to the grossest error ; although they may be 
perfectly logical in themselves. It is also obvious 



Il8 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

that, when the suggestion is true, the prodigious 
power of correct deduction, which is characteristic 
of the subjective mind, enables it to grasp and assim- 
ilate all that there is of truth deducible from the sug- 
gestion. Hence it is that, in an environment of 
truth, the subjective mind is never led astray; for 
its power of intuitive perception of the laws of its 
being and environment always insures truthful sug- 
gestions ; and its power of potentially inerrant deduc- 
tion insures correct conclusions. 

But the physical world does not afford such an 
environment; and false suggestions in every con- 
ceivable form continually beset every sentient crea- 
ture. Hence the necessity of investing the animal 
kingdom with a faculty adapted to such an envi- 
ronment. Hence the evolution of the brain, with its 
capacity for induction, — its faculty or power of dis- 
crimination, its ability to consider more than one fact 
or appearance at a time and to estimate their re- 
spective weights and values. And this is inductive 
reasoning, whether it is manifested in the scientist, 
who collects a vast congeries of facts and classifies 
and weighs them with the intelligence born of culture 
and experience, or in the animal which is only ca- 
pable of comprehending two facts at a time and weigh- 
ing their respective values. 

This, then, is the primary distinctive difference be- 
tween the two minds. The subjective mind considers 
but one fact or suggestion at a time. It accepts that 
fact, or that apparent fact, or suggestion of fact, as 
true, and it acts accordingly. This is what is known 
to science as the " law of suggestion. " On the 
other hand, the objective mind is capable of con- 



EVOLUTION AND THE OBJECTIVE MIND. 119 

sidering two or more facts, or suggestions of fact, 
and of exercising a discriminating judgment between 
them. It is the difference between instinct or intui- 
tion and induction. In an environment of truth the 
first is inerrant. In an environment of uncertainty 
the second becomes necessary. The history of or- 
ganic evolution shows that whatever was found to be 
necessary to the conservation of animal life was event- 
ually evolved in response to that necessity. Accord- 
ingly, when a supplemental faculty of mind became a 
necessity, a new physical organ was evolved, the 
function of which supplied the deficiency and gave 
to animal life a fresh impulse in the direction of pro- 
gressive development. The conclusion seems obvi- 
ous and irresistible that it was when the brain was 
evolved that animals began to reason, that is, to 
reason by the process of induction ; and that it was 
due to the development of that faculty, and in exact 
proportion to that development, that the constantly 
accelerated ratio of evolutionary progress was due. 



CHAPTER VI. 

THE PROCESS OF EVOLUTION. 

Objective Mind educates the Subjective Mind. — Hence the Instinct 
of Animals is exactly proportioned to their Intelligence.— 
Authorities cited. — Progressive Mental Evolution brought about 
by Development of Secondary Instincts. — Romanes on Primary 
and Secondary Instincts. — The Latter brought about by " Natural 
Selection. ,, — The Absurdity of that Theory illustrated. — The Gen- 
eral Theory of Natural Selection accepted with Reservations, 
but it is overloaded to an Absurd Degree. — Lamarck's Theory 
of " Appetency " also accepted with Qualifications. — The Two 
Theories Complementary. — Further Illustration of the Absurdity 
of ascribing Primary Instincts to Natural Selection. —A Logical 
Axiom, " Never needlessly multiply Causes." — Primary and 
Secondary Instincts defined. — They accord with the History of 
Organic Evolution. — New Environmental Conditions reveal 
New Dangers. — These are at first intelligently overcome. — 
Habit converts the Acts into Instincts which are then inherited. 
— Natural Selection not an Original Cause of New Species. — 
Strictly speaking, it is not a Law of Nature. — " Survival of the 
Fittest " an Incident, not a Law. — It is an Effect of other 
Causes. — Natural Selection not the Origin of Species. — Natural 
Selection is the Theory of Chance. — It is Atheistic in its Last 
Analysis. — Lamarck's Theory. — It is a Necessary Factor in any 
Complete Theory of Evolution. — Structural Changes due to 
New Instinctive Impulses. — The Latter due to Brain Develop- 
ment. — Brain Development due to constantly Increasing Com- 
plexities of Environment. — This is True of Man as of the Lower 
Animals. — Each Individual Intelligence is the Sum of all Ances- 
tral Instincts plus its Objective Intelligence. 

IT will not be disputed that the evidence thus far 
adduced points clearly to the conclusion that the 
objective mind — the mind of which the brain is the 
organ — is a potent agency in the progressive de- 



THE PROCESS OF EVOLUTION. 121 

velopment of animal intelligence. It remains to ex- 
amine the process by which this development has 
been brought about. 

It has already been shown that the objective mind 
is the educator of the subjective mind. It is fitted 
for that office by virtue of the fact that its power of 
inductive reasoning qualifies it to act intelligently in 
an imperfect environment, for it possesses the fac- 
ulty of judicial discrimination. In saying this I must 
not be understood as affirming that the objective 
mind performs its function of induction to the ex- 
clusion of instinct. I am not of those who believe, 
with Cuvier, that instinct and intelligence stand in an 
inverse ratio with each other. Darwin, and other 
modern biologists, agree, with Pouchet, that no such 
inverse ratio exists. On the contrary, as the latter 
points out, " those insects which possess the most 
wonderful instincts are certainly the most intelli- 
gent. " * Again, Darwin 2 shows that " in the verte- 
brate series the least intelligent members, namely, 
fishes and amphibians, do not possess complex in- 
stincts ; and amongst mammals the animal most re- 
markable for its instincts, namely, the beaver, is highly 
intelligent. ,,3 In fact, I do not know of a modern 
biologist who does not now admit that animals pos- 
sessing the most complex instincts invariably possess 
a correspondingly high order of objective intelligence. 
I make these references for the reason that, as far as 
they go, they bear me out in what I shall proceed to 



1 Revue des Deux Mondes, February, 1870, p. 690. 

2 Descent of Man, p. 67. 

3 See also " The American Beaver and his Works," by Morgan, 
1868. 



122 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

show ; and that is that complex instincts and intelli- 
gence are exactly proportioned to each other in all 
the broad realm of sentient life, beginning with the 
animal in which a brain was first developed and end- 
ing with the most highly endowed human being. 
This is true for the simple reason that high intelli- 
gence and complex instincts sustain a causal relation 
to each other. That is to say, in any given class or 
species, the more highly developed the objective 
mind becomes, the more complex become the in- 
stincts; for the former is the cause of the latter. 
And this is brought about solely by the development 
of secondary instincts. 

In order to make myself clearly understood in this 
connection, I must revert to what has already been 
said in relation to the distinction between primary 
and secondary instincts as laid down by Romanes and 
others. Not that I agree with Romanes as to the ori- 
gin of primary instincts, for his doctrine relegates the 
whole question to the realm of chance ; * but his gen- 
eral statement of the origin of secondary instincts is 
obviously correct as far as it goes. He explains 
their origin as follows: " By the effects of habit in 
successive generations, actions which were originally 
intelligent become, as it were, stereotyped into per- 
manent instincts. " 2 

This is what Lewes 3 calls the " lapsing of intelli- 
gence," — a term that is liable to mislead in the 
absence of explanation. The meaning is this : After 
an intelligent action has been performed for a certain 
length of time it is converted into an instinct, and as 

1 See " Mental Evolution in Animals/' p. 177. 2 Ibid, 

3 Problems of Life and Mind. 



THE PROCESS OF EVOLUTION, 1 23 

such it is transmitted by inheritance, and succeeding 
generations perform the action automatically, that 
is, " without intelligence." The " intelligence " has 
11 lapsed. ,, 

As before remarked, I accept Romanes' general 
statement of the origin of secondary instincts, or 
rather his definition of such instincts, because it is 
obviously correct. He does not, however, make the 
distinction quite clear between primary and secondary 
instincts, as he defines the former; nor does he give 
us any clue whatever leading to a knowledge of the 
time when or the means by which secondary instincts 
began to be developed. His want of clearness of 
distinction between the two classes is well illustrated 
in his selection of an illustration of the origin of 
primary instincts. 

In order that I may be sure to do no injustice to 
the learned author, I will quote the entire passage 
relating to the origin and development of primary 
instincts : — 

" The first mode of origin consists in natural selection, 
or survival of the fittest, continuously preserving actions 
which, although never intelligent, yet happen to have been 
of benefit to the animals which first chanced to perform 
them. Thus, for instance, take the instinct of incubation. 
It is quite impossible that any animal can ever have kept 
its eggs warm with the intelligent purpose of hatching out 
their contents ; so we can only suppose that the incubating 
instinct began by warm-blooded animals showing that kind 
of attention to their eggs which we find to be frequently 
shown by cold-blooded animals. Thus, crabs and spiders 
carry about their eggs for the purpose of protecting them j 
and if, as animals gradually became warm-blooded, some 



124 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN 

species, for this or for any other purpose, adopted a 
similar habit, the imparting of heat would have become 
incidental to the carrying about of the eggs. Consequently, 
as the imparting of heat promoted the process of hatching, 
those individuals which most constantly cuddled or brooded 
over their eggs would, other things equal, have been the 
most successful in rearing progeny ; and so the incubating 
instinct would be developed without there ever having been 
any intelligence in the mattery x (The italics are mine.) 

It is difficult to see how the learned author is 
enabled to arrive at the conclusion that there never 
could have been " any intelligence in the matter/' in 
view of the fact that the steps involved in the educa- 
tion of the animal, as he describes that process, pre- 
suppose a long series of intelligent observations as 
to the best conditions of successful incubation, fol- 
lowed by the intelligent adoption of the plan that 
had proved to be productive of the best results, and 
the subsequent stereotyping of that process into per- 
manent instincts. It is obvious that the series of 
observations and experiments required by this variety 
of the theory of natural selection would have 
involved the exercise of far higher inductive powers 
than were employed in formulating the theory. The 
intense absurdity of the latter can be fully appreci- 
ated only when we reflect that the eggs of warm- 
blooded animals require a definite time for incubation, 
during which time they must be kept at a given tem- 
perature continuously. Any great or long-continued 
lapse from continuity in the temperature is necessa- 
rily fatal to the life within the egg. This law was in 
existence at the time when the supposed series of 
1 Op. cit. p. 177. 



THE PROCESS OF EVOLUTION. 1 25 

observations was being conducted. Every egg that 
was hatched during that time was, therefore, sub- 
jected to the necessary conditions of continuous heat. 
In the mean time the experimenters in various de- 
grees of "coddling and brooding'' must have died 
without issue. And it is obvious that if they had 
all been experimenters the class would have become 
extinct with the first generation. The fact that they 
did not become extinct is demonstrative that some 
of the eggs were subjected to the necessary continu- 
ous temperature at the very beginning, and that the 
process has been kept up ever since. 

The only other supposition that could possibly 
account for the origin of the instinct of incubation 
on the theory of natural selection, is that the first 
warm-blooded animal that hatched a brood must have 
"accidentally" sat on her eggs continuously during 
the necessary period of incubation, say three weeks. 
The word " accidentally " is advisedly used, for the 
Darwinian theory of natural selection is the theory of 
accident, the hypothesis of chance; and this is the 
theory which Romanes, in the passage above quoted, 
avowedly adopts as his explanation of the origin of 
primary instincts. His words are these: — 

"The first mode of origin consists in natural selection, 
or survival of the fittest, continuously preserving actions 
which, though never intelligent, yet happen to have been 
of benefit to the animals which first chanced to perform 
them." 

It is superfluous to remark that the supposition 
that the process of incubation began by an " acci- 
dental " sitting by the parent animal of, say, three 



126 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

weeks' duration, is in a very high degree improbable, 
to employ no harsher expression in its characteriza- 
tion. But the very last degree of improbability is 
reached when we stop to consider all that is involved 
in the theory of accidental incubation. Thus, the 
continuity of the requisite temperature is presup- 
posed, as any serious lapse would be fatal to the 
embryo. This, in turn, involves a continuous sitting, 
which would be fatal to the parent, and must there- 
fore be dismissed as impossible. The only alter- 
nate supposition is that the parent leaves the nest at 
least once a day to procure the necessary food to 
sustain life. But this, in turn, involves the " acci- 
dental" return to the nest, each day, in time to 
prevent the eggs from getting cold. Again, if pre- 
historic eggs required the same attention and ma- 
nipulation that modern fowls find it profitable to 
bestow upon those of current history, we must sup- 
pose that they required daily turning over in the 
nest. This, of course, involves the supposition that 
each of the first collection of prehistoric eggs was 
" accidentally " turned each day for the required 
period of incubation. 

Nor is this all ; for this congeries of " accidents " 
must, of necessity, have been repeated by the next 
generation, and the next, and so on for an indefi- 
nite period, before the acts became " stereotyped 
into permanent instincts. " This, however, is inferen- 
tial, since our learned author has not vouchsafed the 
information as to how many repetitions of a favoring 
accident are required to convert it into a permanent 
instinct. But he does tell us, what Darwin had 
previously laid down as a general principle, that 



THE PROCESS OF EVOLUTION. 1 27 

" intelligent actions, after being performed during 
several generations, become converted into instincts 
and are inherited, as when birds on oceanic islands 
learn to avoid man." * If therefore it requires 
several generations to convert an intelligent action 
into an inheritable secondary instinct, we have a 
right to infer that it will require at least an equal 
number of generations to convert an " accident " into 
a permanent primary instinct; a fortiori, when it was 
developed, as Romanes assures us the instinct of 
incubation was developed, " without there ever 
having been any intelligence in the matter." 

But as it is reasonably certain that no such 
series of " accidents," with an indefinite number of 
exact repetitions, ever did or ever could occur, we 
are driven to the conclusion that the learned author 
must hold that the accidental experience of one 
individual will be sufficient to " stereotype " the in- 
stinct and render it permanent; and this, too, in the 
absence of " any intelligence whatever." But as that 
is manifestly impossible in the absence of a very 
high order of intelligence, it must be dismissed as 
untenable in fact, as well as inconsistent with the 
learned author's own premises. In point of fact, any 
view that can be taken of the question from the 
standpoint of the theory of natural selection in- 
volves the predication of such a long series of 
" accidents " that the mere enumeration of them is 
a rednctio ad absurdurn. 

In the mean time I must not be understood as 
rejecting the general Darwinian doctrine of natural 
selection. Much less do I reject the Lamarckian 

1 Darwin, Descent of Man, p. 67. 



128 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

doctrine of " appetency." Least of all do I sym- 
pathize with that spirit of partisanship that accepts 
either theory to the exclusion of the other. They 

are both required — and much more besides in 

any system of inductive philosophy that is capable 
of accounting for all the facts of organic and mental 
evolution. 

What I object to is the attempt of materialism to 
overload any one theory with burdens that do not 
belong to it. It is in this spirit that I have ventured 
to draw attention to one or two of the many reasons 
for rejecting the doctrine that primary instincts have 
their origin in natural selection. The illustrations of 
the absurdity of that hypothesis might be multiplied 
indefinitely were it worth while to do so. I have 
used the instinct of incubation as an illustration 
simply because Romanes, by using it, tacitly admitted 
that it was best suited to his purpose. I will content 
myself with one more illustration. 

The instinct of reproduction is certainly a primary 
instinct. It was fully developed in the first uni- 
cellular organism, else there never could have been 
a second unicellular organism ; and the process of 
evolution of animal life would have ceased at the 
very threshold of sentient existence. The process of 
reproduction by unicellular organisms is by fission 
or segmentation. That is, the cell separates into 
two equal parts, each of which is a complete cell, 
endowed with all the attributes of the original cell. 
Now, in order to account for the origin of the pri- 
mary instinct of reproduction on the theory of natural 
selection, we must suppose that an " accident " hap- 
pened to the original cell resulting in splitting it ia 



THE PROCESS OF EVOLUTION. 1 29 

two in the middle. Then we must suppose that each 
half gathered itself together, took account of stock, 
and discovered — " accidentally/' of course — that 
there was enough left to constitute a quorum, so to 
speak, and to complete an independent organism. 
The subsequent steps by which this accident was 
converted into a permanent instinct I leave to be 
decided by those who believe that the theory of 
natural selection, or the hypothesis of chance, is a 
sufficient explanation of all the phenomena incident 
to the progressive development of the organic world. 

It is, however, useless to waste time in showing 
the absurdity of supposing that the instincts of pri- 
mordial unicellular organisms owed their origin to 
natural selection ; for I do not know that any biolo- 
gist of prominence now seriously entertains that 
theory. The point I wish to make is that since some 
primary instincts of the most important character are 
inherent in the mental organism of animals, there is 
no valid reason for supposing that other primary 
instincts owe their origin to natural selection. 

One of the primary rules of scientific investiga- 
tion is that we should never needlessly multiply causes. 
That is to say, where an adequate cause of any 
class of phenomena is known to exist we have 
neither occasion nor logical right to seek other 
causes for the same or cognate phenomena. Now, we 
know that many of the primary instincts are inherent 
in the mental organism of animals. It is unneces- 
sary, therefore, to invoke any other theory to account 
for any primary instinct, at least until it is first 
shown that the known cause is inadequate to explain 
all the phenomena. Until, therefore, the contrary 

9 



130 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

is demonstrated, we may safely assume that the 
instinct of incubation in warm-blooded animals 
arises from the same irresistible impulse that impels 
the lower animals to the acts of reproduction or 
nutrition, or any of the other acts necessary to self- 
preservation. It may, in fact, be safely assumed to 
be a law of evolutionary development, in the absence 
of proof or reason to the contrary, that every new 
species evolved is endowed with primary, that is, 
inherent, instincts adapted to its use and necessi- 
ties. Were this not true, each new species would 
perish before " natural selection " could select. 

I have dwelt at some length upon this branch of 
the subject for the reason that I desire to make the 
distinction clear between primary and secondary 
instincts. This has never been done heretofore; 
and it seems probable that the unnecessary exploita- 
tion of the theory of natural selection as an explana- 
tion of the origin of some of the primary instincts 
has arisen from the want of a clear apprehension of 
this distinction. In point of fact, in the hazy atmos- 
phere of the old psychologies, it was impossible to 
perceive clearly the line of delimitation between 
the two classes of instincts. In other words, it was 
impossible, under the old psychology, to assign a 
specific, exclusive cause for the development of 
secondary instincts. This is the crucial question, 
for when that is known the distinction instantly 
becomes apparent. 

I have quoted with approval Romanes* very gen- 
eral statement of the origin of secondary instincts. 
Briefly stated, it is that habit converts actions that 
were "originally intelligent" into "permanent 



THE PROCESS OF EVOLUTION. 131 

instincts. " But he does not tell us what was the 
specific agency that enabled animals to perform 
" intelligent " actions that are so far distinct from 
the ordinary instinctive, automatic actions of 
animals that it requires generations of habitual 
performance to convert them into permanent in- 
stincts. Obviously, there is a clear line of demarca- 
tion somewhere between the two distinct classes of 
actions; and that the classes are so divergent in 
their nature, so antithetical in their characteristics, 
that it is impossible to refer them to a common 
origin. 

What that distinction is, the intelligent reader 
who has followed me thus far has already antici- 
pated. The following propositions will define my 
position with sufficient clearness to enable the 
reader to perceive the significance of the facts 
which will be adduced in this and in later 
chapters : — 

1. Primary instincts are those which are inherent 
in the mental organism of animals in their native 
environment. They exist antecedent to reason, 
experience, or instruction, and are transmitted to 
posterity by inheritance. They include all that 
were possessed by animals prior to the development 
of a brain organism. 

2. Secondary instincts all have their origin in 
that intelligence of which the brain is the organ, 
and are the result of the reaction of that intelli- 
gence upon a new or a changed environment. 

3. They become permanent instincts after being 
"performed for several generations," and "are then 
inherited/' the same as primary instincts (Darwin). 



132 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN 

It will now be seen, by an examination of the facts, 
that the distinctions above made exactly accord 
with the history of organic evolution as set forth 
by Haeckel and other great lights of evolutionary 
science. 

No such thing as a secondary instinct has been 
shown to have existed prior to the advent of animal 
life upon dry land. A brain did not exist during 
the primordial epoch. During the next epoch a 
brain began to be developed, and, simultaneously 
therewith, fern forests appeared upon land, thus 
rendering it habitable for animal life; and at the 
same time providing the material for the carbonifer- 
ous strata which now furnish our supplies of coal 
and petroleum. And it is a significant fact that 
it was during the carboniferous period "that some 
fishes began to accustom themselves to live upon 
land, and thus gave rise to the amphibian class." 1 

Here, then, are three coincidental facts of pro- 
found significance, namely: (a) the development of 
a brain; (b) the development of conditions favor- 
able to the sustentation of animal life upon dry 
land, and (c) the advent of the amphibian class, — 
"the earliest terrestrial and air-breathing animals." 2 

Now, unless we rest content to adopt the hypothe- 
sis of chance to account for these facts, we must 
infer, (i) that a brain was developed in response to 
a rapidly approaching necessity for a change of 
environment; and (2) that such a change became 
possible by the simultaneous development of (a) 
terrestrial conditions rendering it possible for animal 

1 The Evolution of Man, vol. ii. p. 13. 

2 Op. cit. 



THE PROCESS OF EVOLUTION. 1 33 

life to be sustained on dry land, and (b) a mental 
organism capable of intelligently responding to 
those conditions. 

Accordingly we find, as before remarked, (1) that 
a brain was developed during the second, or palaeo- 
lithic epoch; (2) that during the middle palaeolithic 
epoch, or carboniferous period, fern forests and air- 
breathing animals simultaneously appeared. 

This was the first step in brain development in 
advance of that of the fishes. It was a small step, 
it is true, for the amphibia are but very little more 
intelligent than their immediate ancestors ; but it was 
the beginning of a vastly more rapid development 
than was possible in a purely aquatic environment. 

The reader is again referred to the table in 
Chapter V., showing the percentages of time con- 
sumed in the development of the various orders and 
classes of animals before and after the development 
of a brain. 

It is obvious, at a glance, that the constantly 
increasing rapidity of development, as shown by the 
table, must be a fact of profound significance. And 
when we consider it in connection with the general 
principle laid down by Darwin and the other authori- 
ties quoted, that animals possessing the highest 
intelligence have the most complex instincts, we 
are prepared to understand the exact function which 
the brain performs in the development of animal 
intelligence. We are also enabled to locate the 
dividing line between primary and secondary in- 
stincts, and to understand the process by which the 
latter are primarily developed, and finally become 
fixed and inheritable attributes of the mind. 



134 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

The following propositions are, therefore, pro 
visionally submitted : — 

i. The "intelligent actions " to which Darwin 
and Romanes refer as the bases of secondary in- 
stincts, are, in all cases, prompted by that intelli- 
gence of which the brain is the organ, namely, the 
objective mind. 

2. The inciting causes of the activity and con- 
sequent development of the brain intelligence of 
the lower animals are changes of environmental 
conditions. 

3. It follows, (a) that all instincts possessed by 
animals prior to the development of a brain are 
primary instincts; (b) that all instincts originally 
possessed by any given species are, in effect, 
primary instincts, even though the species itself 
may be the result of ancestral development of secon- 
dary instincts, and (c) that animal intelligence is 
necessarily proportioned to complexity of environ- 
mental conditions. 

Enough has already been said to show, prima 
facie, that the first proposition is true; the table 
alone presenting sufficient a priori grounds to sus- 
tain that theory. If, therefore, the a posteriori 
reasons point to the same conclusion, the question 
may be considered as settled. The three proposi- 
tions will be considered together. 

In the first place, it is very evident that the slow 
progress of development during the primordial epoch 
was due to two causes, namely: (1) the purely 
aquatic environment, which allowed but little varia- 
tion of conditions; and (2) the absence of brain 
development, which alone is able to take intelli- 



THE PROCESS OF EVOLUTION. 1 35 

gent advantage of any variation in environmental 
conditions. 

The second, or primary, epoch presented a new 
condition, in that vegetable life was developed on 
dry land. But there was still only a limited variety 
of environmental conditions. It was the age of fern 
forests, — a gigantic vegetal growth of practically 
one genus. It afforded a temporary refuge for 
some of the more highly endowed fishes, and hence 
the gradual development of the amphibia. But the 
conditions on dry land at that time were even 
more monotonous than in the sea; and hence the 
inconceivably slow progress of development of 
animal life and intelligence. It required, as the 
table shows, more than thirty-two per cent of the 
time consumed since the beginning of organic life 
on this planet, to develop the amphibia, or, rather, 
to reach a higher order than the amphibia. In 
other words, it required untold millions of years to 
perfect that step in the process of organic evolution, 
notwithstanding the fact that it was taken in pursu- 
ance of an originally intelligent purpose, as dis- 
tinguished from an instinctive impulse. It was, in 
fact, when fishes began to accustom themselves to 
live upon dry land that the first step was taken in 
the development of a secondary instinct. It was 
the first intelligent action of the brain mind that 
has left its impress upon the organic world. 

It certainly was not a primary instinct that im- 
pelled a fish to abandon its native element even 
temporarily. It was an intelligent action, in pur- 
suance of an intelligent purpose. It was, moreover, 
"an enterprise of great pith and moment, " and one 



136 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

that was deliberately taken, and often repeated, 
through several generations, before it was stereo- 
typed into a permanent instinct. The theory of 
natural selection cannot be invoked to account for 
the beginning of that instinct; for it could not have 
been the result of an " accident. " It is a matter of 
common observation that when a fish is accidentally 
thrown upon dry land he loses no time in working 
his way back to his native element ; and he is not 
prone to repeat the experiment of his own volition. 
There could not, therefore, be the slightest tendency 
toward a hereditary transmission of terrestrial 
habits as the result of an accidental or enforced 
sojourn upon dry land. The tendency, in fact, 
would be to reinforce the primary instinct which 
impels fishes to remain in their native element. 
We must therefore exclude accident, or the ele- 
ment of chance, as a possible factor in the develop- 
ment of that secondary instinct which brought into 
being and perpetuated the amphibia. 

In making this exclusion we thereby also exclude 
natural selection, or survival of the fittest, as the 
cause of the development of that particular genus. 
And I may here remark, parenthetically, that natural 
selection, or survival of the fittest, is not, properly 
speaking, the original cause of variation in, or 
origin of, species. I do not deny that it is a factor 
of the utmost importance; but it is not an original 
cause. It is not even a law of nature, strictly 
speaking ; for natural law is properly defined as 
"the uniform occurrence of natural phenomena in 
the same way or order under the same conditions. " 
The term " survival of the fittest " does not describe 



THE PROCESS OF EVOLUTION. 1 37 

a uniform occurrence of natural phenomena. On 
the contrary, it is made to cover a great variety of 
phenomena, some of them of exactly opposite char- 
acter to others. Thus, among animals, other things 
being equal, those possessing the greatest strength 
are the ones that survive. In some cases it means a 
survival of the swiftest. Among the higher animals 
it is often the most sagacious, as in man. Among 
nations it was formerly a question of numbers and 
the physical prowess of the private soldier; and it 
was thus that the " fittest " to survive were the bar- 
barous hordes that destroyed the civilization of 
ancient Rome. In modern times the most skilful 
men behind the biggest guns are the survivors, 
physical strength being a factor of the least impor- 
tance. As between savages and civilized men in 
times of peace, the fittest to survive are those who 
require the least area of land from which to draw 
their sustenance. Thus, the North American Indian 
required a vast territory to supply him with the 
necessary game to enable him to live; while his 
civilized neighbor could sustain himself in comfort 
on a few acres of land. But in war the modern 
appliances of warfare place the savages at a disad- 
vantage. As between different races living together 
and sustaining peaceful relations, the fittest to sur- 
vive may be the ones who can live and labor on the 
least or the cheapest food. Thus, the Chinaman, 
who can live on a handful of rice per day, once 
threatened to starve the American laborer to death, 
and would have done so but for the passage of laws 
restricting Chinese immigration. In that case the 
inferior race would have been the fittest, and he 



138 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN 

would have survived the wreck of our civilization. 
But, with the passage of that law, the conditions of 
survival were instantly reversed; for our ability to 
enforce that law depended upon our superior military 
and naval strength, notwithstanding the disparity in 
numbers. 

It will thus be seen that the so-called law of 
" survival of the fittest " is not a law of nature, but 
a condition, — an incident, and not a primary cause. 
It is an effect of other and far deeper and more 
important causes. 

In saying this, I must not be understood as seek- 
ing to eliminate natural selection or the survival of 
the fittest as a factor in the progressive development 
of organic life. Far from it. That theory is indis- 
pensable in any hypothesis which seeks to account 
for the existence of the organic world on principles 
of evolutionary development. What I wish to show 
is, that the theory is overloaded with burdens that 
do not properly belong to it; but, more particularly, 
that it is a condition the causes of which must them- 
selves be accounted for on other grounds than those 
set forth by Darwin and his followers. 

As before stated, theirs is the doctrine of chance. 
Eliminate that element from the Darwinian theory, 
and there is little left of it. Not that I would 
undertake to eliminate that factor entirely from the 
process of evolutionary development. No one who 
has intelligently observed the progressive develop- 
ment of varieties of species among domestic animals 
can doubt the fact that the element of accident or 
chance has entered very largely into the process. 
Amons: breeders of domestic animals this element 



THE PROCESS OF EVOLUTION. 1 39 

is largely though not entirely eliminated by intelli- 
gent artificial and sexual selection. But domesti- 
cation itself is an accident ; that is to say, it is out 
of the natural order, and the result of fortuitous 
circumstances. 

We may, therefore, give due credit to the element 
of accident, and fortuitous changes of environment, 
which is much the same thing, for a large part of 
the phenomena of variation of species. And we 
may also give the theory the benefit of the doubt in 
many cases where the question of the origin of 
species is involved; since it is often difficult to 
determine whether two given animals belong to 
different species or represent extreme variations of 
the same species. It will become evident, however, 
as we proceed, that the element of chance is a less 
potent factor in the origin of species than it is in 
the production of morphological variations; that it 
is still less in the origin of genera than in that of 
species; that, in short, the farther we go back in 
the history of organic evolution the less potent is 
the element of chance ; and the more potent is the 
element of intelligence, that is, instinctive intelli- 
gence, as a factor in the progressive development of 
the organic world. 

Nevertheless, we cannot wholly eliminate fortui- 
tism at any given stage ; for it is obvious that many 
changes of environmental conditions may occur 
which animal intelligence cannot have originated; 
e. g., when a great cataclysm of nature segregates 
a genus or a species from the parent stock or its 
native environment. 

This is somewhat of a digression; but it became 



140 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

necessary in order to define clearly the issue 
between fortuitism, which is the argument of 
Darwin, Haeckel, and their followers, and the teleo- 
logical argument of which I am building the founda- 
tion out of their own materials. 

With that class of reasoners chance is everything, 
— especially everything of a causal nature. It is 
veiled under a multitude of words of learned length 
and scientific sound; but the last analysis of their 
argument reveals chance as their ultimate as well 
as their proximate cause. Thus, they assume that 
it was a fortuitous juxtaposition and final union of 
certain chemical elements that produced a living 
organism endowed with a mind (Haeckel). It was 
fortuitism that developed the primary instincts 
(Romanes). It was a series of accidents that was 
responsible for the origin of species (Darwin). 

It will now be seen that the whole trend and 
tendency of their argument is to place organism in 
advance of intelligence, • — physical structure in 
advance of mind. The obvious reason for this atti- 
tude is, that the clear, analytical mind of Darwin 
easily foresaw that if it were once admitted that 
mind sustained, in any degree whatsoever, a causal 
relation to physical structure, the admission, carried 
to its legitimate conclusion, would make for teleology 
or theism. 

It thus becomes obvious why Darwin so contemptu- 
ously rejected the Lamarckian doctrine of appetency, 
which was, in a less clearly defined form, also held 
by his own grandfather, Erasmus Darwin. The La- 
marckian theory is summed up with sufficient clear- 
ness for our present purpose by Geddes, in his article 



THE PROCESS OF EVOLUTION. 141 

on " Variation and Selection " in the " Encyclopaedia 
Britannica," in words following: — 

" The well-known theory of Lamarck laid special em- 
phasis on function and environment ; for, though the sense 
of need in association with suitable environment calls out a 
succession of efforts, and so originates incipient structural 
modifications, it is to increased functioning that the in- 
crease of these modifications must be ascribed, while sim- 
ilarly disuse explains degeneration. Changed conditions 
produce new wants, nutritive and reproductive; hence 
changes in climate, or the like, change the organism by 
changing its habits. Rapid increase is checked by other 
organisms : the strongest and best armed for attack devour 
the weaker, and the less perfect genera are kept down by 
the more perfect.' ' 

It will thus be seen that the gist of Lamarck's 
theory was that changes of physical structure are 
brought about in response to impulses from within, 
which impulses arise from the necessities imposed by 
environment. Lamarck illustrates the principle in 
the following words : — 

" I conceive that a gasteropod mollusk, which, as it crawls 
along, finds the need of touching the bodies in front of it, 
makes the effort to touch those bodies with some of the 
foremost parts of its head, and sends to these every time 
quantities of nervous fluids, as well as other liquids. I con- 
ceive, I say, that it must result from this reiterated afflux 
towards the points in question that the nerves which abut 
at these points will, by slow degrees, be extended. Now, 
as in the same circumstances other fluids of the animal flow 
also to the same places, and especially nourishing fluids, 
it must follow that two or more tentacles will appear and 



142 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

develop insensibly in those circumstances on the points 
referred to." 

Now, if it be objected that such a process of growth 
would require very many generations to perfect the 
tentacles of a gasteropod mollusk, it may well be 
asked how long it would take to perform the same 
feat under natural selection? In other words, how 
many accidents of a similar character, occurring in 
the same family, in successive generations, would 
be required to endow a species permanently with 
tentacles? 

The long neck of the giraffe has also been used to 
illustrate the Lamarckian theory; the necessities of 
its environment and the nature of its daily food re- 
quiring that animal to reach to the higher branches 
of trees in search of sustenance. 

In view of the facts that modern science has ex- 
perimentally developed regarding the unlimited power 
of the subjective mind of man over the functions, 
sensations, and conditions of his body, it requires no 
effort of imagination or of credulity, no soaring into 
regions of speculative philosophy, to arrive at the 
conclusion that the active agency of development 
resides within all sentient creatures ; and that accident 
plays but a very subordinate part in the process of 
organic evolution. 

Volumes might be filled with illustrative experi- 
ments made by scientists demonstrating the power of 
the subjective mind over the body — its power of 
modifying function, increasing or decreasing the cir- 
culation of the blood, of causing or allaying fevers, 
of healing or of causing lesions, as in bloody stig- 



THE PROCESS OF EVOLUTION. 1 43 

mata (Bernheim), or of its power over diseases in 
general; but the reader must be referred to the 
current literature on the subject. It must suffice to 
remark that the evidence is sufficient to warrant the 
provisional assumption that the subjective, or instinc- 
tive, minds of animals have the power of so modi- 
fying the structure of their bodies by constant 
refunctioning of particular parts, as to produce, in the 
course of time, new organs adapted to the exigencies 
of physical environment. 

If we reason from the ontogeny of the individual to 
the phylogeny of the species, the evidence becomes 
conclusive in many instances. As this method of 
reasoning is constantly insisted upon by the ablest 
biologists as being demonstrative, we will cite an 
instance in point. It is well known that some insects, 
a few batrachians, and many fishes possess the power 
of changing their colors to conform to that of their 
immediate surroundings. This is done for the pur- 
pose of concealment from natural enemies; and the 
power, especially among fishes, is wonderfully near 
perfection. With some species a great variety of 
colors and color combinations seems to be at instant 
command. Now, it is obvious that this power of in- 
stantaneous change is brought about by an instinc- 
tive impulse. It is an adaptation of means to ends 
of so pronounced and varied a character that " reflex 
action " cannot be invoked as an explanation. Rea- 
soning, therefore, from ontogeny to phylogeny, we 
must suppose that the faculty is the result of an 
instinctive impulse. And this is true whether we 
classify the instinct as primary or secondary. In 
other words, the impulse which caused the necessary 



144 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

structural growth was from within ; and mind preceded 
organism and function. 

It will thus be seen that the Lamarckian doctrine 
of appetency is a necessary factor in any theory of 
progressive development of animal life that is com- 
petent to explain all the facts. Neither the Darwin- 
ian theory of natural selection, nor the Lamarckian 
doctrine of appetency, is complete without the other. 
The latter, indeed, bears a causal relation to the 
former; and it explains all that the doctrine of nat- 
ural selection leaves unexplained. Moreover, appe- 
tency is a law of nature. Natural selection is not 
No amount of sophistry, no weight of great names 
or authority, can invest a series of accidents with 
that dignity. Moreover, a series of accidents, how- 
ever numerous or important, can neither cause nor 
adequately explain the orderly, progressive develop- 
ment of anything, much less the evolution of a uni- 
verse, or a planet, or of humanity. It requires a 
law to do that ; and to Lamarck is due the credit of 
having made a partial discovery of that law. 

It will now be seen that the true relation which 
Lamarckism and Darwinism sustain to each other is 
this : The law of appetency underlies the phenomena 
of natural selection. This will be further elucidated 
in subsequent chapters. 

It remains to explain the modus operandi of the 
Lamarckian law; and this brings us back to the 
propositions set forth just before the beginning of 
this digression. 

Briefly restated, the gist of the propositions is 
this: Progressive development of animal intelli- 
gence, and concomitant structural changes, are 



THE PROCESS OF EVOLUTION. 145 

primarily due to the constant accretion of secondary 
instincts; the latter being the result of the develop- 
ment of the brain intelligence, and this, in turn, 
being due to a constantly increasing complexity of 
environmental conditions. The latter clause of the 
proposition will not be disputed after a moment's 
reflection. It is a matter of common experience and 
observation that, other things being equal, the culture 
and consequent progress of each individual depends 
largely, if not wholly, upon environmental conditions. 
The mute, inglorious Miltons who people the country 
churchyards differed from the author of " Paradise 
Lost" only because of the difference of environment. 
The farmer's son who forsakes the parental roof and 
becomes great and honored, who commands the 
applause of listening senates or wades through 
slaughter to a throne, may possess no more native 
talent than the brother who chooses to remain at 
home to break the stubborn glebe and inherit the 
homely joys and destiny obscure of his rude fore- 
fathers. The difference is due to a changed environ- 
ment, whether the change be the result of accident, 
or of necessity, or of deliberate choice. Be that as 
it may, the fact remains that the greater complexities 
of the new environment furnish the stimuli to that 
culture which constitutes " intelligent adaptation." 
There are, of course, vast differences in the capacity 
of individuals to adapt themselves to new environ- 
ments ; and it is this difference that determines the 
question of survival of the fittest. In any event, it is 
an impulse from within that constitutes the motive 
power of progressional development. 

The same rules hold good in the realm of animal 

TO 



146 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

life. It is a change of environment that furnishes the 
stimulus to mental growth; and consequently, the 
more complex the new environment the greater 
the stimulus and the more rapid the progress toward 
intelligent adaptation to the new conditions. And as 
it is with a man, so it is with an animal : its ability to 
adapt itself to, and to take intelligent advantage of, 
new environmental conditions, constitutes the effec- 
tive factor in its progressive development. 

Now, as the instinct of self-preservation is one of 
the two generic primary instincts common to all 
sentient creatures, it follows that the salient features 
of any new environment in which one of the lower 
animals finds itself, and which stimulate its mental 
activity, consist of new dangers to be encountered 
and new methods of obtaining sustenance. These 
conditions must be met intelligently, if at all success- 
fully. The primary instincts which belong to the 
animal in its native environment are useless to it 
when new dangers are encountered. In other words, 
the subjective mind, owing to its limitations, is not 
capable of coping with new conditions. But the 
objective, or brain, mind is specially adapted to that 
exigency ; and as soon as it has learned the source 
of danger, it intelligently avoids it in the future. 
When this intelligent action has been performed for 
a few generations, it becomes converted into an 
instinct and is then inherited. Instances have already 
been cited. 

This, then, is the way that secondary instincts are 
created or evolved. It must be remarked, in this 
connection, that old instincts are lost whenever the 
conditions of a new environment render them no 



THE PROCESS OF EVOLUTION. 1 47 

longer useful, as in the case of animals that have been 
domesticated. 

We are now prepared to understand the full signifi- 
cance of the geometrically increasing ratio of develop- 
ment of animal intelligence after a brain became a 
factor in the process of evolution. Each successive 
epoch being distinguished by a constantly augment- 
ing fauna, the environment was correspondingly 
increased in complexity. As dangers multiplied, the 
difficulty of obtaining food increased, and the conse- 
quence was that sagacity became a factor of constantly 
increasing importance. Even the larger carnivora, 
whose strength and ferocity rendered them irresistible 
in open warfare, were compelled to resort to strategic 
measures to secure their prey from among the 
weaker but swifter or more sagacious animals. The 
latter were compelled to exercise their sagacity, not 
only in securing nourishment, but in constantly 
guarding against dangers arising from contact with 
other animals who were armed with superior weapons 
of offensive and defensive warfare. Thus, it happens 
that, as Darwin declares, and all other intelligent 
naturalists admit (Cuvier excepted), animals possess- 
ing " the most wonderful instincts are certainly the 
most intelligent." 1 

In the mean time the Lamarckian law prevailed, 
each newly acquired instinct effecting a correspond- 
ing modification of physical structure, which, in the 
fullness of time and amplitude of development, con- 
stituted either new genera or new species. Incident- 
ally, natural selection tended to preserve those animals 
which were the most highly endowed, physically or 
1 Descent of Man, p. 67. 



148 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN 

mentally. In other words, the so-called "law of 
survival of the fittest " is an incidental result of that 
struggle for life which followed the evolution of 
antagonistic genera and species under the law of 
appetency. 

It will thus be seen that mind was, in all cases, 
antecedent to, and the cause of, structural changes. 
It must not be forgotten, however, that it was the 
subjective, or instinctive, mind that effected all pro- 
gressive development, from the moneron to man. 
The objective, or brain, mind is, and always has been, 
the educator of the subjective mind. That is to say, 
by its intelligent action in emergencies it constantly 
originated new or secondary instincts ; and these, in 
turn, became a part of the subjective mental equip- 
ment of the animal, and, by inheritance, of the 
species to which it belonged. In the mean time 
each instinct, primary or secondary, continues to 
form an inheritable part of the mental equipment 
of a species as long as it is useful. 

The mental equipment, therefore, of each individual 
animal, other things being equal, comprises the sum- 
total of all its ancestral instincts that remain useful, 
plus its objective, or reasoning, intelligence. Hence 
it is that the great bulk of the aggregate of ani- 
mal intelligence consists of that consolidated, cor- 
related congeries of primary and secondary instincts 
which has been inherited from its ancestry, near and 
remote. 



CHAPTER VII. 

RECAPITULATION. 

Instincts of the Unicellular Organism. — Its Impellent Energy. — 
The Constant Force back of Evolution. — The Law is Progress. — 
Nature's Novum Organum. — Useful Instincts a Permanent Her- 
itage. — Appetency the Effective Agency of Progressive Develop- 
ment. — Every Mind Organism a Union of Elements of Conserva- 
tion and Progress. — The Immutability of Natural Law. — The 
same Laws prevail in Organic and Mental, Moral and Spiritual 
Development. — Primary Instincts the same in Animals and 
Men. — The same is true of Secondary Instincts. — Instinct and 
Intuition Identical. — Emotions have the same Root and Origin. 
— Religious Worship a Filial Emotion. — Animal Telepathy. — 
Telekinetic Energy. — Objective and Subjective Memory differ- 
entiated. — In Men as in Animals the Increasing Complexities of 
Environment the Spur to Progressive Development. — In Men as 
in Animals the Bulk of Intelligence is Subjective. — The Ulti- 
mate Ego is the Subjective Entity. — All that is worth Preserv- 
ing in the Future Life resides in the Subjective Mind. 

THE salient features of the processes of organic 
and mental evolution, thus far developed, may 
be summed up by way of recapitulation as follows : 
I. The unicellular organism, from which science 
traces the pedigree of man, possesses, in common 
with all other animals, what is generically termed the 
11 instinct of self-preservation." In other words, it 
possesses the inherent, intuitional power or faculty of 
perception, antecedent to reason or instruction, of the 
essential laws of its being, including the law of pro- 
gressive development. 



I$0 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN 

2. This instinctive perception constantly impels to 
acts preservative of the individual and of the species, 
including those which are promotive of improve- 
ment. 

3. This instinctive impulse constitutes the constant 
force in nature which is the efficient cause of the 
evolution of all genera and species. 

4. This constant force is modified by environ- 
mental conditions; and hence the infinite variety 
and number of genera and species. 

5. The law, however, is progress; and hence there 
was a constant, though slow rate of progressive de- 
velopment during the primordial epoch, at the close 
of which a brain was developed and the lowest of 
the vertebrata appeared. 

6. When a brain appeared, it was literally a novum 
organum — a new organ — of mentation; and, true 
to the Baconian nomenclature, it was the organ of 
"inductive reasoning ;" and this became the edu- 
cator of instinct. 

7. This education was carried on by the intelli- 
gent performance of acts which were useful or 
preservative, which acts were in process of time 
converted into instincts and then became the per- 
manent heritage of the species. 

8. The objective, or brain, mind is, therefore, the 
agency by which new emergencies are met and new 
instincts are developed ; and the subjective, or in- 
stinctive, mind is the agency by which the new or 
secondary instincts are assimilated, retained, co- 
ordinated with other faculties, and thus made of 
permanent benefit to the species. 

9. In the mean time that primordial impulse which 



RECAPITULA TION. 1 5 1 

has been denominated " appetency," and which is the 
effective agency, par excellence, of progressive de- 
velopment, is the inseparable concomitant, if not 
indeed an integral element, of the instinct of self- 
preservation ; and it is still as potential an element 
of every subjective intelligence as it was when the 
first group of amoebae united to form a multicellular 
organism. 

10. It follows that every animal intelligence unites 
within itself the elements, not only for its own con- 
servation, but for its progressive development; and, 
all being faculties of the subjective mind, they are 
transmissible by inheritance, and are consequently 
the permanent endowment of the species to which 
it belongs. 

11. Again, as remarked at the close of the pre- 
ceding chapter, the mental equipment of each in- 
dividual animal, other things being equal, comprises 
the sum-total of all its ancestral instincts, primary and 
secondary, that have remained useful, plus its objec- 
tive, or reasoning, intelligence. 

12. The foregoing considerations are at once ex- 
planatory and confirmative of the conclusion arrived 
at by Pouchet and Morgan, and admitted by Darwin, 
that animals possessing the most complex instincts 
are the most intelligent. 

We are now prepared to take one step further in 
tracing the processes of evolutionary development of 
mind on this planet. 

That there is " no variableness or shadow of turn- 
ing " in the Great First Cause is an axiom that will not 
be disputed by the theologian who sees the hand of 
God in the processes of evolution, nor by the materi- 



152 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN 

alistic scientist who has convinced himself, by his 
peculiar processes of " induction/' that the evolu- 
tionary development of physical and mental organ- 
isms is the result of a blind operation of correlate 
forces inherent in matter. 

Neither of them should, therefore, be incredulous 
when he is told that the same laws and processes 
that developed the mental organism of animals, from 
the moneron to man, are the active agencies of 
man's progressive development from primitive sav- 
agery to the highest civilization, mental, moral, and 
religious. 

I have already remarked upon the fact that the 
great bulk of the intelligence of an animal is made 
up of its accumulated ancestral instincts and pro- 
pensities ; the brain intelligence being merely a use- 
ful adjunct specially adapted to the exigencies of 
a physical environment. This is obviously true for 
two reasons, namely, the comparatively limited brain, 
or objective, intelligence of animals ; but especially 
because all the primary instincts and propensities 
were inherited from the skull-less animals of the 
primordial epoch. 

Now, if man is descended from the lower animals, 
it follows that the same is true of him ; the only 
possible difference being one of degree or of modifi- 
cations resulting from environmental conditions. A 
few words will make my meaning clear. 

That the primary instincts are shared in common 
by man and the lower animals, does not admit of 
argument or dispute. These obviously belong to 
the primary intelligence, or the subjective mind, — 
the mind that existed millions of years antecedent 



RECA PITULA TION. 1 5 3 

to the objective mind, of which the brain is the 
organ. 

The same is necessarily true of the secondary 
instincts ; for they are but so many additions to the 
original stock of primary instincts. All instincts, 
therefore, belong to the subjective mind. 

Intuition, being but another name for a higher 
instinct, also belongs to the subjective mind; as also 
does its concomitant faculty of potentially inerrant 
deduction. 

The " emotions " of man are obviously identical 
with the " animal propensities " of his lower ances- 
tors; and as they antedate the brain, they are 
necessarily faculties of the subjective mind. The 
higher emotions of man being but the modified, edu- 
cated, regulated, and purified emotions or propensi- 
ties of the lower animals, must all be classed as 
faculties of the subjective mind. Even the emotion 
of religious worship finds its root and origin in the 
intuitive recognition of the Divine Fatherhood. 

That the faculty of telepathy also belongs to the 
subjective mind has been amply demonstrated by 
researches in experimental psychology, notably those 
of the Society for Psychical Research. Whether 
animals possess that faculty in such a degree 
as to be able to communicate with each other, 
and if so to what extent, are mooted questions among 
scientists. It is, however, a well-established fact that 
man can impress certain domestic animals l telepathi- 
cally. Be that as it may, it may be set down as 
axiomatic that any faculty that is found to exist in 
the subjective mind of man necessarily existed, 

1 See " The Law of Psychic Phenomena," chapter ix. 



154 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN 

potentially at least, in the minds of his ancestry, 
near and remote. It is, in fact, upon this fundamen- 
tal truth that the vitality of evolutionary processes 
depends. 

Telekinetic energy, which has been variously des- 
ignated as psychic force (Sir William Crookes), 
ectenic force (Professor Thury), and telekinesis 
(Professor Coues), is demonstrably a power or faculty 
of the subjective mind. This is true whether we 
attribute its phenomena to the embodied or to the 
disembodied souls of men. This, I scarcely need to 
remark, is the power to move ponderable bodies 
without physical contact or mechanical agencies. I 
shall have more to say of this force hereinafter. It 
is mentioned here only to complete the list of sub- 
jective faculties as set forth in the tabular statement 
in Chapter II., to which the reader is again referred. 
In the mean time I ask the reader to accept the state- 
ment, provisionally, that telekinetic energy belongs 
wholly to the subjective mind. 

I have reserved the faculty of memory for the last, 
because it is shared by the objective mind. More- 
over, it is the only faculty that is shared by the two 
minds. But the points of differentiation are so nu- 
merous and so radical that they must be considered 
separately. 

The memory of the objective mind is merely the 
concomitant of induction, the latter being the only 
faculty belonging exclusively to the objective mind. 
As induction presupposes facts to reason from, its 
organ is necessarily endowed with a memory. But, 
like every other physical organ, the brain has its 
limitations of power, and these are extended by 



RECA PI TULA T10N. 1 5 5 

exercise and cultivation. Cerebral anatomists tell us 
that a new brain cell is created for every new objec- 
tive experience. These cells, therefore, constitute 
receptacles for brain memories ; and their efficiency 
depends upon constant or frequent refunctioning. If 
that is neglected, the cell necessarily atrophies, 
precisely as every other physical organ atrophies 
for lack of exercise. Hence the so-called imperfec- 
tion, or evanescent character, of the memory of the 
objective mind. Hence, also, the common obser- 
vation that our stock of knowledge is measured 
by what we remember and not by what we have 
learned. 

This is eminently true of both minds ; but as the 
subjective mind is not dependent for its continued 
existence nor for its efficiency upon any physical 
organ or organism, its memory does not depend upon 
the continued refunctioning of brain cells, nor, indeed, 
of those of any other physical organ. Its memory 
is therefore an inherent power or faculty which defies 
the analysis of the physicist, and cannot be eliminated 
with the scalpel. The subjective mind, therefore, is 
literally the " storehouse of memory," for it retains 
and assimilates everything that the objective mind 
acquires, besides much of what the latter has never 
consciously possessed. 

Nor are these all of the memorial possessions of the 
subjective mind. As we have already seen in dis- 
cussing animal instinct, whenever an action becomes 
instinctive it is transmitted by inheritance to the 
posterity of the animal, and it is retained as the 
heritage of all future generations so long as it re- 
mains useful to the species. This being true alike of 



156 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

primary and secondary instincts, it follows that the 
subjective, or instinctive, mind of each animal is a 
storehouse, not only of memories of individual 
experiences, but of all its ancestral experiences that 
remain useful. That the same proposition is true of 
man's subjective mind it needs no argument to sus- 
tain. Nor must we lose sight of the correlative fact, 
which all intelligent naturalists now admit, that the 
higher the intelligence of animals the more complex 
are their instincts ; and that the same is necessarily 
true of man. Then, when we reflect that the range 
and complexity of man's instinctive intelligence are 
constantly augmented by the multiplying variations 
of his environmental conditions incident to the pro- 
gressive development of civilization, which in turn is 
constantly creating new wants and necessities of 
existence, physical, mental, moral, and spiritual, and 
as constantly revealing correlative dangers to be 
avoided or overcome, we may begin to realize how 
infinitely complex must be the instincts of man when 
compared with those of the most intelligent of the 
lower animals. 

Again, as with the lower animals, so with man, 
acquired or secondary instincts, together with pri- 
mary instincts, are transmitted by descent, and 
remain as hereditaments of the species so long as 
they remain useful. It follows that with man as with 
animals, the subjective mind is the storehouse of 
ancestral memories; and when we add to these the 
perfect memory of individual experiences and of 
acquired knowledge, however superficially it may 
have been impressed upon the objective mind, we 
may begin to approach a realization of what a vast 



RECAPITULA TION. 1 57 

storehouse of latent memorial intelligence is the sub- 
jective mind of the average civilized man. 

It will now be seen that it is true of man as it is of 
the lower animals, that the great bulk of his intel- 
ligence is resident in the subjective mind. The 
psycho-physical faculty of inductive reasoning con- 
stitutes the only exception; and that faculty, as I 
have often repeated, is simply a highly specialized 
faculty which is the function of a highly differentiated 
physical organ, and is especially adapted to serve as 
a temporary guide through the mazes of a physical 
environment. But it is no more a permanent faculty 
of the ultimate Ego than is any other physical func- 
tion, and for precisely the same rea son : it wou ld be 
useless in any other than a physical environment. 
In dealing with the subjective mind of man, there- 
fore, we are dealing with all that goes to make up the 
real man, all, indeed, that could contribute to a per- 
fect manhood in an environment of truth. We are 
dealing with all of man that can possibly survive the 
dissolution of the physical investiture, — all that is 
worth preserving for the future life. But it must not 
be forgotten that we are also dealing with an entity 
whose every faculty is essential, and is moreover 
especially adapted, to the existence of a disembodied 
soul in an environment of perfect truth. 1 

It remains to inquire how this entity has been 
developed since man appeared. This inquiry will 
necessarily include the evolution of civilization from 
savagery, and incidentally of the evolution of man as 
a moral and religious being. This, of course, is a 

1 For a full discussion of this branch of the general subject, see 
" A Scientific Demonstration of the Future Life." 



158 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

vast subject, to treat which exhaustively would re- 
quire many volumes. I shall therefore be com- 
pelled to content myself with a brief generalization, 
my principal object being to state the general psy- 
chological principles involved in the process of 
development. 



CHAPTER VIII. 

THE TWO GREAT GENERIC INSTINCTS. 

The Simplicity of Nature's Laws. — Evolution no Exception. — Two 
Instincts responsible for all the Phenomena of Evolutionary 
' Development. — Self- Preservation and the Instinct of Evolution : 
one Conservative, the other Progressive and Creative. — Nat- 
ural Selection not a Law, but an Incident. — Evolutionary 
Instinct a Constant Force. — It is also Altruistic in all its Im- 
pulses. — Illustrations from Every-Day Life. — Fallacies of the 
Old Philosophies. — They refer Everything to Instinct of Self-Pres- 
ervation. — With them all Virtue or Benevolence a Sublimated 
Form of Selfishness. — Herbert Spencer's Philosophy of Utilitari- 
anism. — Pure Selfishness. — Altruistic Acts the most Pleasur- 
able, because in Harmony with the Strongest Instinct. — Pri- 
mordial Altruism. — The Creative Energy Inherent in all Sentient 
Creatures. — Human Character determined by Relative Develop- 
ment of the Two Instincts. — Altruistic Impulses Predominant in 
the World. — Welfare of Future Generations the Incentive. — 
Schools, Colleges, Churches, and Eleemosynary Institutions, are 
Examples. — Altruistic Instinct Stronger than Instinct of Self- 
Preservation, otherwise there could be no Progress. — The most 
Altruistic Governments the most Progressive, and the People the 
most Patriotic and Brave and Warlike and Humane. — Progress 
toward Universal Altruism Constant and Rapid. — Atavistic and 
Degenerate Nations. — Their Decadence. — Central Ideas of 
Evolutionists and Christian Theism harmonized. — The Evolu- 
tionary Instinct the Impellent Energy of Physical, Mental, Moral, 
and Religious Progress. 

TT is a common remark that the laws of nature 
■*- are simple to the last degree. This is literally 
true, at least in the sense that they can generally be 
formulated in terms that are easily understood. The 
law of organic evolution constitutes no exception to 
this rule. Indeed it furnishes one of the most strik- 



l6o THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN 

ing illustrations of it ; for it will be found upon the 
last analysis that every step in organic evolution, 
every advance in the evolution of civilization, every 
step in mental, moral, or spiritual development, are 
directly referable to two primordial instincts. The 
first is the instinct of self-preservation, and the second 
is that to which the Lamarckian philosophers have 
given the very inadequate title of " appetency." The 
term was doubtless expressive of all that it was in- 
tended to embrace ; but, for reasons which will appear 
later on, it is inadequate to express all that it implies. 
I shall provisionally designate it as the evolutionary 
instinct, and define it as the instinct which impels the 
organic world onward in the path of progressive 
development. A moment's reflection will make it 
clear that without such an instinct there could be no 
real progress in the organic world. The instinct of 
self-preservation is merely the conservator of existing 
conditions, and is destitute of a single impulse toward 
progress. It is purely self-regarding and conserva- 
tive ; and with that alone as a motive force the pro- 
cess of organic evolution would have been arrested 
at the threshold of sentient existence. The monera 
would have remained in the mass for all time ; for in 
the absence of the progressive impulse there would 
have been no incentive to reproduction. 

The term " evolution " is expressive of a series of 
progressive changes, or a process of progressive 
development. That it is a law of nature no one 
will gainsay. Being a law of nature, it presupposes 
a constant, impellent, antecedent force or energy 
inherent in each individual organism that is subject 
to the law. The only possible alternative hypothe- 



THE TWO GREAT GENERIC INSTINCTS. l6l 

ses are miracle and chance; and either one would 
remove the subject-matter outside the domain of 
law. The former, of course, cannot be considered 
in a scientific treatise. The latter can only be 
treated as a possible factor; but it is merely inci- 
dental and always subordinate. Accidents may, and 
constantly do, happen ; and an accident may modify 
or control, favorably or otherwise, the orderly se- 
quence of events naturally arising from a constantly 
operative antecedent cause. But neither an acci- 
dent nor the result of an accident,, however fre- 
quently the former may be repeated or however 
uniform or beneficent may be the latter, can ever 
be elevated to the dignity of a law of nature. 
The same may be said of incidents happening in 
the regular course of things, for they are always 
subordinate to the main purpose. And this is the 
best that can be said of the so-called law of natural 
selection, or the survival of the fittest. It is inci- 
dental to the law of evolution ; it is not the law itself, 
It occurs in the natural order of progressive devel- 
opment; but it does not, of itself, constitute the pro- 
cess of development. It is, indeed, an indispensable 
concomitant of the process. But it is preservative, 
not causative. 

This, indeed, is all that Darwin himself claimed for 
natural selection. " It implies only the preservation 
of such variations as arise and are beneficial to the 
being under its conditions of life/' 1 are his words. 
The rest was left to chance. Romanes adopts nat- 
ural selection as his theory of the origin of primary 
instincts, as I have pointed out in a previous chapter, 

1 Origin of Species, p. 99. 
II 



1 62 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

and distinctly relegates everything to chance. As I 
have before intimated, I do not object to the theory 
of natural selection when considered solely as the 
preservative element of organic evolution. But the 
theory, as set forth by its author and his followers, 
presupposes the " variations, " or structural changes, 
to arise from chance, and not from any instinctive 
impulse due to the necessities of the being under 
its environmental conditions. The Darwinian theory 
is, therefore, conspicuously inadequate as an expla- 
nation of the most important part of the process 
of organic evolution. It is wholly negative in its 
character and scope, in that it fails to point out 
that positive, constant force or energy that could 
alone entitle it to a place in the category of ascer- 
tained laws of nature. This omission, as I have 
already repeatedly pointed out, is supplied by the 
Lamarckian doctrine of " appetency," or, as I have 
designated it, the " evolutionary instinct." 

The theory of evolution, however, can be simpli- 
fied to the last degree and rendered adequate to the 
explanation of all the facts by assuming the evolu- 
tionary instinct to be simply correlative to the in- 
stinct of self-preservation. The latter has been 
grievously overloaded by the philosophic world, 
and forced to perform duties that were utterly for- 
eign to the purposes of its existence. By a system 
of logical legerdemain it has been made to pose in 
the guise of altruism, whereas altruism is its abso- 
lute opposite. It has been burdened with the care 
of the family, the tribe, the state, and the nation, 
and charged with the duty of promoting progress; 
whereas it is at best but the conservator of that 



THE TWO GREAT GENERIC INSTINCTS. 1 63 

which ministers to self. It is, therefore, purely- 
negative in its character; for it is utterly destitute 
of that positive energy which makes for progress. 
That energy is supplied by the instinct of evolu- 
tion. And it is only by including that as one of 
the primordial instincts, and as merely a concomi- 
tant of the instinct of self-preservation, that a theory 
of evolution can be formulated that will account for 
all the facts. 

This instinct, broadly speaking, is the impulse 
toward improvement, as distinguished from the im- 
pulse to preserve. In the lower animals it was 
expended largely in the improvement of physical 
structure as a means of ameliorating the conditions 
of environment. In man it lies at the root of all 
efforts toward improvement and progress in every 
department of human activity. It is, in short, that 
constant, impulsive force or energy which renders 
every normal human being unsatisfied with present 
conditions. Its absence in any field of human en- 
deavor leads to stagnation, arrested development, 
senile conservatism, and consequent atrophy. It 
is the impulse that leads every man to accumulate 
the means, not only to better his own condition, 
but to give his children greater advantages than he 
himself possessed. Abnormally developed, it leads 
to hoarding useless wealth without reference to pos- 
terity. It is the impulse that leads the civilized 
municipality, state, or nation to establish educa- 
tional institutions for the benefit of posterity. It 
is the impulse that leads to legislation for the 
encouragement of enterprise and for the gradual 
improvement of moral and social conditions. Its 



1 64 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

abnormal development breeds those impractical re- 
formers who, forgetting that the salient evils of 
society are the expressions of the defects of com- 
mon humanity as it exists for the time being, seek 
to enforce their peculiar notions of morality by leg- 
islation. It is the impulse that leads the enlight- 
ened nations of the earth to expand the area of 
Christian civilization, and to extend to other less 
favored peoples the blessings of good government. 
In a word, it lies at the root of all missionary effort, 
whether of individuals, of societies, or of nations. 

Without further illustration it will readily be seen 
that this instinct may also be appropriately desig- 
nated as the altruistic instinct ; for its every normal 
manifestation is for the benefit of others, especially for 
future generations. 

It is the concomitant of the instinct of self-preser- 
vation ; but that they are not identical is evidenced 
by the fact that one may be manifested to the exclu- 
sion of the other. Thus, some insects end their lives 
with the act of reproduction ; while some fishes will 
devour their own offspring to satisfy their hunger if 
not prevented by their mates. Some men and wo- 
men will starve themselves for the sake of giving 
their children an education and a start in life superior 
to their own ; while others will starve their children 
for the sake of hoarding money for the gratification 
of their own wants and appetence. In a word, the 
instinct of self-preservation is just what its designa- 
tion indicates, and nothing more. It is conserva- 
tive, not progressive ; it is preservative, not creative ; 
it is selfish, not altruistic. Normally the two in- 
stincts harmonize with beneficent results, for they 



THE TWO GREAT GENERIC INSTINCTS. 165 

supplement and balance each other; but under 
abnormal conditions one may predominate to the 
exclusion of the other. 

In the mean time philosophers and scientists have, 
from time immemorial, conspired to overload the in- 
stinct of self-preservation with burdens that do not 
belong to it. Thus, it is a common observation that 
all human actions, in their last analysis, are prompted 
by pure selfishness, the substratum of which is the 
instinct of self-preservation. By a subtle process 
of reasoning they have sought to refer to that instinct 
the care of the parent for the child, the love of 
husbands and wives, the love of the patriot for his 
country, the love of the philanthropist for humanity, 
the love of humanity for God. In short, they have 
sought to eliminate every virtue from the human 
soul, or to degrade it to the dismal level of sordid 
selfishness. Even Christian philosophers have some- 
times been misled by the plausible character of the 
reasoning, and some have adopted it on the score 
of its primal " simplicity." They have even sought 
to show forth the wisdom of God in thus being able 
to convert the most inherently selfish instinct into an 
instrument for the promotion of the purest altruism. 
It is a " simple " proposition, it is true, but to attempt 
to demonstrate its truth logically involves a strain that 
reason itself is not able to endure. One would sup- 
pose from such reasoning that God was limited in his 
supply of instincts, since one is made to subserve so 
many antagonistic purposes. Besides, if it is true 
that what we call altruism is but selfishness in another 
form, it is still selfishness and not altruism. There- 
fore altruism does not exist. The same is true of all 



1 66 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

other so-called virtues, according to their reasoning. 
Therefore virtue does not exist ; and all the so-called 
virtues of the human soul are reduced, in their ulti- 
mate analysis, to the level of that instinct that causes 
a cornered rat to fight for its life. 

This is a rough but truthful way of stating the 
ultimate conclusion of those philosophers who hold 
that the one instinct of self-preservation is sufficient 
to account for all the phenomena of organic and 
mental and moral evolution. Mr. Herbert Spencer 
is, perhaps, the most illustrious example. This 
great philosopher labors through many pages of 
subtle analysis to the conclusion that " every altruistic 
feeling needs the corresponding egoistic feeling as 
an indispensable factor. ,, ! I do not quote this pas- 
sage for the purpose of controverting his premises 
or this specific conclusion ; for it is but another way 
of saying that benevolent actions are productive of 
pleasurable emotions in the mind of the benefactor. 
Nobody can, or will, dispute that proposition ; for it is 
but a specific statement of a great truth, namely, that 
to the normally constituted human being it is more 
pleasurable to do right than it is to do wrong. Hu- 
manity would be in a pitiable condition if the oppo- 
site were true ; that is, if every virtuous action were 
productive of painful instead of pleasurable emo- 
tions. Doubtless many of them are ; but that is 
merely incidental to the process of evolutionary de- 
velopment, and not a general law. The law is that 
the normal human being derives more pleasure from 
doing right than he does from doing wrong. This 
being true, while it tends to confirm Mr. Spencer's 

1 Principles of Psychology, vol. ii. 2, part ix., p. 616 (Corollaries.) 



THE TWO GREAT GENERIC INSTINCTS. 1 67 

specific conclusion above quoted, it completely dis- 
proves his general conclusion, which is that all pro- 
gressive development, mental, social, moral, and 
altruistic, is brought about by natural selection. In 
the chapter above quoted from, he distinctly says that 
11 the altruistic sentiments adjust themselves to the 
modes of conduct that are permanently beneficial. " * 
This, of course, is natural selection, pure and simple; 
besides being a reduction, in specific terms, of the 
highest and purest altruism to a purely utilitarian 
basis. 

Now, no one will deny the proposition that the 
greatest pleasure that any sentient being can expe- 
rience arises from the performance of those acts 
which are prompted by, or are in harmony with, the 
natural instincts. Moreover, the pleasure experi- 
enced is directly proportioned to the strength of the 
instinct. It needs no argument to sustain these 
propositions. 

If therefore it is true, as Mr. Spencer holds, that 
the altruistic acts of highly developed human beings 
are the most pleasurable that they can experience, it 
follows that those acts are prompted by, or are in 
harmony with, the strongest instinct with which 
sentient creatures are endowed, not excepting the 
instinct of self-preservation. But this conclusion is 
the exact opposite of that to which Mr. Spencer's 
premises lead. His theory, being based upon the 
principle of natural selection, is that altruism is de- 
veloped, not in harmony with any natural instinct, 
but by an intelligent adjustment to such modes 01 
conduct as have been found to be "permanently 

1 Op. cit. p. 618 et seq. 



1 68 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

beneficial." This, of course, is brought about in 
defiance of the natural, selfish instincts, including 
that of self-preservation; otherwise it must be by 
some sort of transformation of the inherently selfish 
instincts into purely unselfish emotions. This can 
be done only by a process of logical legerdemain, 
and in utter disregard of the plainest facts of organic 
and mental evolution. 

I have before spoken of the alleged " simplicity " 
of the theory that the selfish instincts are thus trans- 
formed ; but it is difficult to see how it can be held 
to be simple except in the statement of the propo- 
sition, since it involves a palpable contradiction in 
terms and a logical difficulty that is absolutely in- 
surmountable. The proverbial simplicity of nature's 
laws does not involve contradictions, either in fact 
or in logic; and the twin theories that altruism 
originates in the purely selfish instincts, and that 
altruism is, in fact, pure selfishness, mitigated only 
by the incidental circumstance that it benefits some- 
body else, is a contradiction as gross and palpable 
as ever entered into the philosophy of materialism. 
They properly belong, however, to that system of 
philosophy which seeks to eliminate intelligence 
from the universe as a causative agency, and to 
relegate everything to chance or natural selection. 

I have already shown that Darwin's theory of 
natural selection is incomplete and inadequate to 
explain all the facts of organic evolution. The 
same remarks apply to mental and moral evolution, 
— the evolution of civilization. That is to say, 
natural selection is an incidental factor in the pro- 
cess; but it is inadequate as an explanation of the 



THE TWO GREAT GENERIC INSTINCTS. 1 69 

whole process, because it is not a constant force 
tending always in the one direction. Such a force, 
constant and ever progressive, we find in the evo- 
lution of animal life, and it has been named " appe- 
tency/' But that instinct obviously warrants a 
broader generalization, which, in turn, suggests the 
.necessity for a new name. I have ventured to call it 
the " evolutionary instinct." But even this does not 
express all of its potentialities. It may be de- 
scribed, however, in general terms, by saying that it 
is the instinct that impels all sentient creatures to the 
performance of acts which inure to the benefit of tJie 
species and of future generations. 

This, of course, includes the act of reproduction; 
for that pertains exclusively to future generations. 
It includes the care of the young, for the same 
reason. It includes those impulses which result in 
the progressive development of the physical struc- 
ture, and which evolutionists have denominated 
"appetency/' for they also inure to the benefit of 
the species and of future generations. 

Here it must be remarked of these three primordial 
instincts or impulses: — 

First, that the instinct of reproduction in animals 
is independent of the instinct of self-preservation; 
and in the human race the two instincts are often in 
direct antagonism, as in cases of over-population. 

Secondly, that the impulse which leads to the 
care of the young is also independent of the instinct 
of self-preservation; and is often in antagonism to 
it, as in cases where the parent sacrifices her own 
life for the preservation of her offspring. 

A corollary of these propositions is that the 



170 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

primordial instinct which cares for the welfare of 
the species and of future generations is normally 
stronger than the instinct of self-preservation. 

And this is primordial altruism , into which the 
element of selfishness as such does not enter. 

Thirdly, it must be here remarked that the inhe- 
rent power which developed and improved the 
physical structures of all sentient creatures was the 
creative energy of organic evolution, without which 
"there was not anything made that was made." 

The reader will now perceive the adumbration of 
a great truth, which, as thus far developed, may be 
formulated as follows: — 

The primordial cell was endowed, ab initio, with 
instincts which, in their normal interrelated activi- 
ties, constitute a constant energy that is both pro- 
gressive and conservative, creative and preservative, 
self-regarding and altruistic. Being primordial in- 
stincts, they are the heritage of all sentient creatures, 
and hence we may expect to witness their ultimate 
^development in man. 

And this is precisely what we do find in man, 
individually and collectively. We find that he still 
retains the instinct of self-preservation, with all the 
selfishness that its abnormal development implies, 
all too frequently manifested in his character, indi- 
vidual and national. We also find the altruistic 
instinct retained and developed, broadened and 
ever broadening, elevated and ever reaching into 
higher realms. And we also find, by an analysis 
that any one can make for himself, that man's whole 
character, in all the relations of his life, whether he 
is considered as an individual, a husband or a father, 



THE TWO GREAT GENERIC INSTINCTS. 171 

a neighbor or a citizen, a moral or a religious being, 
is determined by the relative development and 
dominance of the two instincts. 

It might be inferred from these remarks that the 
two are incompatible, since they are so often in 
antagonism. But, as in natural selection, this is an 
incident and not a law. They are both necessary, 
and when harmoniously developed and balanced, they 
are never in antagonism. The latter is incidental 
to the state of transition from the animal to man, 
from primitive savagery to civilization. 

It is the mental phenomena incident to this 
transitory state that give rise to so much subtle 
analysis and sophistication on the part of those 
philosophers and scientists who examine monads 
and morals with the same microscope. These are 
the philosophers who find in the soul of man noth- 
ing but selfishness, no basis of human integrity but 
in the instinct of self-preservation, no virtue but in 
lack of opportunity, no altruism but in some form 
of self-indulgence, no religion but in fear of future 
punishment. 

Nevertheless, the altruistic acts of civilized beings 
predominate. Every family of children is a living 
attestation of this truth. Every schoolhouse, church, 
and eleemosynary institution is a monumental evi- 
dence of it. Every mission, foreign or domestic, 
proclaims it. Every legislative act for the benefit 
of future generations is an expression of national 
altruism. This list might be indefinitely extended 
without including a tithe of the acts that are daily 
and hourly being performed by millions of self- 
sacrificing men and women whose only reward or 



172 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN 

hope of reward is the consciousness that their toil 
will benefit others. 

I do not underestimate the element of self-regard 
that may enter into many of the acts which inure to 
the benefit of future generations. The two impulses, 
when harmoniously developed, as they are in every 
normal man and woman, are concomitants; for, 
obviously, every one must preserve his own life if 
he would benefit others. But what I do say is that 
when the balance is struck between those acts which 
are performed under the impulses derived from the 
instinct of self-preservation and those which are 
prompted by the altruistic instinct, an overwhelm- 
ing preponderance will be found on the side of 
altruism. 

The myriad little acts, for the benefit of others, 
which constitute the daily life of all mothers and 
fathers, neighbors and friends, largely swell the 
balance which must be credited on the side of in- 
stinctive altruism. They are unheralded, unnoted, 
and unrecorded, save in the book of the " Recording 
Angel ; " but they are often the deeds of heroes and 
of martyrs. The unobservant world takes no note 
of them ; for its attention is constantly solicited to 
the daily record of crimes. Besides, "the evil that 
men do lives after them; the good is oft interred 
with their bones. " It is not strange, therefore, that 
the superficial observer is unconsciously led to the 
belief that selfishness, with its train of manifold 
evils, is the rule and not the exception; or that even 
great philosophers should come to regard all altruistic 
feeling as but a sublimated form of selfishness. We 
should not, therefore, judge the busy world too 



THE TWO GREAT GENERIC INSTINCTS. 1 73 

harshly for its lack of close observation, or its want 
of analytical power. Nor should we condemn the 
philosopher for the conclusions which he derives 
from a close analysis of psychological phenomena; 
for it is axiomatic with the old psychologists, that 
each student of the science must be guided, in the 
solution of problems, largely by the recognized states 
of his own inner consciousness. 1 

I think that it can safely be said that the fore- 
going facts constitute presumptive evidence that 
there exists in all sentient creatures, from the 
moneron to man, an instinct that can be appro- 
priately designated by no name less comprehensive 
than that of the "evolutionary instinct; " that in its 
moral aspects it must be called the "altruistic in- 
stinct ;" and that it is distinct and separable from 
the instinct of self-preservation. If conclusive 
evidence is wanting, it is found in the fact that, 
when the two instincts are in the balance, the altru- 
istic instinct normally prevails. This is evidenced 
in a thousand ways, some of which I have already 
mentioned. It is demonstrably proven by the broad 
fact that progress is being made in civilization, and 
that the greatest progress is made among those 
nations whose form of government is the most 

1 That " inner consciousness " is an unsafe guide, is evidenced by 
the fact that under the old system (or want of system) there were as 
many psychologies, each contradictory of the others, as there were 
psychologists of variant idiosyncrasies. The fact that the latter were 
responsible for each one's u recognized states of his own inner con- 
sciousness " accounts for the chaotic condition of the old psychology. 
Obviously this arose from the lack of a valid working hypothesis, 
applicable alike to all states of consciousness, and adequate to the 
explication of all psychological phenomena. 



174 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

altruistic, whose laws accord the fullest recognition 
of the rights of the people. It is among the people 
of such nations that the dominance of the altruistic 
instinct over that of self-preservation is most fre- 
quently made manifest. In them it is manifested in 
the habitual disregard of danger to self when the 
lives of others are at stake, — in the firemen who risk 
and often sacrifice their lives in rescuing women 
and children from the flames, in the pilot who 
perishes at the wheel while steering a burning pas- 
senger-laden boat to the shore, in the soldier who 
without conscription offers his life to his country 
and humanity, in the sailors who instinctively seat 
all the passengers of a sinking ship in the lifeboats 
before taking thought for their own safety. 

It is true that a high degree of national altruism 
must be attained before such deeds become habitual, 
instinctive, and characteristic of a people. But that 
such nations exist is current history. It is also true 
that there are nations, calling themselves civilized, 
that have not yet risen to that moral altitude, or 
have fallen below it, whose sailors instinctively 
seize the lifeboats of a sinking ship and brain the 
women and children who seek to share their safety. 

Nevertheless, the world is tending toward the 
higher altruism, national and individual. There 
may be cases of arrested development, atavism, 
degeneracy, and national decadence ; and one of the 
surest evidences of it is the habitual disregard of the 
rights of women and children, of which the savage 
brutality above mentioned is merely the efflorescence. 
Fortunately, however, sterility and degeneration are 
concomitants with a causal connection; and racial 



THE TWO GREAT GENERIC INSTINCTS. 17$ 

extinction, therefore, is but a question of time. 
Atavism, with all that the name implies, antecedent 
and consequent, is an incident of evolutionary de- 
velopment, as well of civilization as of organic life; 
but natural selection, or survival of the fittest, 
gradually eliminates all elements of antagonism 
to that primordial energy which is the cause of all 
evolution. And as that energy is as constant and 
as potent in the evolution of civilization as it was 
in the primordial cell, we may rest assured that 
neither the atavism of one race nor the primitive 
savagery of another can arrest the onward and 
upward progress of humanity toward universal 
altruism. 

It will now be seen that in making the foregoing 
remarks I have not antagonized the central idea of 
the most rigidly scientific evolutionist; for if there 
is any one thing that he labors to establish that is 
more vital to his hypothesis than any other, it is 
that the potentialities of manhood reside in the primor- 
dial cell. And this is just what I have been labor- 
ing to prove, and I submit that I have given better 
reasons for that belief than he has; for by showing 
that altruism is the dominant characteristic of all 
normal sentient beings, I have correlated the regnant 
instinct of the lowest unicellular organism with the 
highest attributes of an ideally perfect manhood. 

Nor have I antagonized the central idea of Chris- 
tian theism as it was voiced by the oldest prophets ; 
for if there is any one doctrine that is more vital to 
Christianity than another, it is that man was made 
in the image of God. And this, I submit, could not 
be true if altruism were not the regnant instinct of 



176 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

the human soul, or if its universality were not the 
ultimate goal of human progress. 

And thus it happens that the central tenet of each 
of two supposedly antagonistic philosophies is con- 
firmed and illustrated by one fundamental truth. 

This of itself is profoundly significant; for the 
fact that a hypothesis is capable of harmonizing 
two supposedly antagonistic philosophies is a strong 
argument for its truth. Nor is this all. The most 
significant part of it is that this one instinct not 
only constitutes the potential energy which lies at 
the bottom of all physical development from the 
moneron to man; but it is the agency of man's 
mental, moral, and spiritual development from sav- 
agery to civilization, and constitutes the promise 
and potency of universal altruism. 



CHAPTER IX. 

EVOLUTION OF THE TWO INSTINCTS IN THE 
INDIVIDUAL. 

Recapitulation. — Man's Environment of a Moral, Social, and Spirit- 
ual Nature. — Same Process of Development with Men as with 
Animals. — Brain Mind reasons out a Line of Conduct. — Habit 
converts it into a Permanent Characteristic. — It is then an 
Attribute of the Subjective Mind, i. e. Instinctive. — It is then 
Inheritable. — The Warfare between Reason and Passion. — Not 
for the Suppression of Passional Emotions, but for their Regula- 
tion. — Reason the Judicial Tribunal. — The Sum of its Decisions 
constitutes the Character of the Individual. — As befits its Judi- 
cial Character, the Reasoning Mind is Emotionless. — Neverthe- 
less it ministers to Self-interest. — It decides upon what is Best 
for the Individual. — The Brain the Novum Organum of Animal 
Intelligence. — Suggestion the Executive Agency of the Judicial 
Tribunal. — It is the Power which invests Man with Dominion 
over all Animate Nature, including Himself. — Intellectual Facul- 
ties of Subjective Mind rarely appear above the Surface. — Ex- 
ceptions in Genius. — Emotions, however, constantly in Evidence. 
— Synchronism of the Two Minds. — Facts demonstrating Duality 
of Mind. — Hypnotism, Somnambulism, etc. — Objective Mind 
not controlled by Suggestion. — Subjective Mind is so controlled 
except in Matters of Conscience. — Man not handicapped by a 
Preponderance of Evil in his Nature. — The Strongest Instinct 
impels to Progress. — Reason is on the Side of Right. — A Cru- 
cial Question. — W T hy does the Mortal Mind dominate the Im- 
mortal Mind in this Life ? — The Question answered. — The 
Immortal, or Subjective, Mind was destined for a Higher Plane 
of Ultimate Existence. — Meantime Subjective Faculties must 
develop on this Plane. — Reason the Agency. — Thus Man was 
made a Free Moral Agent. 



I 



HAVE now shown that all the emotions of the 
soul of man have their origin in two correlative 
instincts, namely; the instinct of self-preservation 
and the evolutionary, or altruistic, instinct. I have 

12 



178 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN 

pointed out the fact that under normal conditions 
the two are harmoniously interrelated, but that 
under abnormal conditions either faculty may obtain 
undue ascendancy, even to the total submergence of 
the other. 

I have shown that, normally, the instinct of self- 
preservation is conservative and preservative ; that it 
is promotive of a due regard for existing conditions, 
personal safety, and private rights ; but that, abnor- 
mally developed, it leads to pure selfishness and a 
total disregard of the rights of others. 

On the other hand, the evolutionary instinct, 
normally developed, is creative, progressive, and 
altruistic, altruism predominating. Abnormal de- 
velopment leads to a chronic dissatisfaction with 
existing institutions and to imbecile schemes for 
reforming them ; to hysterical sympathy for crimi- 
nals whose crimes are of exceptional atrocity; to 
suicide for the purpose of enabling one's family to 
realize on his life insurance ; in short, to unreason- 
ing and unrestrained excitation of the sympathetic 
emotions. 

I have shown that between the extremes of self- 
ishness and altruism there exists a wide battlefield 
for the contending emotions ; that the conflict be- 
tween them is incident to the transitional stage of 
development from primitive savagery to an ideal 
civilization. It is the great body of mental phe- 
nomena incident to this transitional stage that fur- 
nishes forth the pike de resistance for all the feasts 
of reason with which philosophers and metaphysi- 
cians have been wont to regale mankind. I shall 
not enter that field at present except for the purpose 



TWO INSTINCTS IN THE INDIVIDUAL. 1 79 

of a brief inquiry with especial reference to the in- 
fluence of the brain mind, or objective mind, upon 
the development and regulation of the two instincts 
which we have been considering. 

I have already endeavored to show that the brain is 
simply a highly specialized physical organ, especially 
adapted to the exigencies of a physical environment, 
and that it was developed in response to the growing 
necessities of animal life, just as, under other condi- 
tions, weapons of offensive and defensive warfare were 
developed. I have shown that the brain performed 
its functions largely by the process of developing 
secondary instincts; that it was constantly stimulated 
to increased efficiency by contact with ever-increas- 
ing complexities of constantly changing environ- 
mental conditions ; and that it thus became in man 
the dominating factor in the dual mental organism. 
I shall now attempt to show that man's mental, 
moral, spiritual, and social development is brought 
about by precisely the same agencies, operating by 
the same processes that developed animal intelligence 
after the brain became a factor in mental evolution. 
There are differences, of course ; but they are of 
degree, proportion, and subject-matter. That is to 
say, there is a difference of degree in the development 
of the objective mind, there is a difference in the 
proportional development of the two minds, and 
there is a difference in subject-matter in that the 
environmental conditions, which stimulate the growth 
and progressive development of man, are largely of 
a moral, intellectual, and spiritual nature. But the 
processes are fundamentally identical. 

Thus, when an animal is confronted by a new en- 



180 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN 

vironment, involving new problems of subsistence 
and new dangers to be encountered, its inherited 
instincts are at fault ; and hence it " acts intelligently," 
as the naturalists say. That is, it reasons out the 
problems presented and acts accordingly. In other 
words, the objective, or brain, intelligence performs its 
functions and directs aline of conduct adapted to the 
exigencies of the case. Then, if the conditions are 
permanent, the intelligent act becomes habitual, and 
finally, " after being performed for several genera- 
tions it is converted into a permanent instinct, and is 
thereafter inherited." 

When new problems are presented to man, the 
process and the result are the same. For instance, 
a question involving the principles of right and 
wrong presents itself to the objective, or reasoning, 
mind. It may be a question involving the personal 
welfare of the individual, or it may involve his emo- 
tional nature. It may be a question of religious duty, 
or it may involve his obligations to his family, the 
community in which he resides, or the state which 
claims his allegiance. In either case there may be 
conflicting interests, emotions, or passions to recon- 
cile, regulate, or restrain. The untrained passions of 
the animal or the primitive man, with correspondingly 
feeble reasoning powers, would quickly decide in favor 
of sensual gratification, unless restrained by an obvi- 
ously imminent danger. But the man whose reason is 
trained and developed may yet be beset by strong 
emotions, passions, interests, or desires that conflict 
with what reason prescribes as a duty to himself, to 
humanity, or to God. Then ensues the great conflict 
of which Paul complains, — " the law in his members 



TWO INSTINCTS IN THE INDIVIDUAL. l8l 

warring against the law of his mind." Every normal 
man is called upon to experience this warfare be- 
tween duty and desire, between right and wrong. 
Normally conducted, it is a conflict, not for the 
destruction of the emotional nature of man, not for 
the elimination of the passional element from his 
soul, but for the regulation, elevation, and purifica- 
tion of that element and directing it into legitimate 
channels of normal activity. 

It is the office of reason, the function of the objec- 
tive mind, to decide the contest, and just in propor- 
tion to the relative strength of the reasoning powers 
as compared with that of man's selfish emotions, will 
the decision be on the side of right as against wrong. 

Reason, therefore, is the judicial tribunal of the 
soul ; and when its decision is made in any case of 
conflict, a course of conduct is entered upon in ac- 
cordance with that decision. And it is the aggregate 
of these decisions that constitutes the character of the 
individual. Whatever the course may be, when it 
becomes habitual, and when it is persisted in for a 
few generations, it is converted into an instinct and 
is then inherited. In other words, another second- 
ary instinct is thus created, which adds its quota to 
the sum of the faculties of the subjective mind. 

It must not be forgotten, in this connection, that 
while the objective mind is cold and emotionless, as 
becomes its judicial function, it is, and has been from 
the beginning, identified in its judicial capacity with 
the instincts of self-preservation and appetency, or the 
evolutionary instinct. As we have already seen, it is 
the source of secondary instincts alike in animals 
and in man. That it is the source of all progress in 



1 82 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

the sciences and the appliances of civilization, is a 
matter of common observation. It follows that its 
constant aim is to do the very best it can for the 
preservation and progress of humanity. Its judgment 
may sometimes be wrong, but that it is generally 
right is evidenced by the giant strides which civiliza- 
tion has made since Bacon formulated the function 
of the brain and reduced its process of reasoning to a 
system. 

Nor must it be forgotten that this judicial tribunal 
of the dual mental organism is not destitute of an 
executive agency to enforce its decrees. That agency 
is what is known to science as the law of suggestion. 
The power of suggestion is the most potent mental 
energy with which man is endowed. Its influence is 
felt in every department of human activity. It is the 
instrumentality of universal education. It is the 
power that invests man with dominion over all sen- 
tient creatures. It is, in short, the instrumentality 
through which the mind of reason is enabled to edu- 
cate and discipline the soul for weal or woe in this 
world and the world to come. 

I repeat, therefore, that the objective mind, the 
mind of which the sole function is that of inductive 
reasoning, is the judicial tribunal — the court of 
Oyer and Terminer — which hears and determines 
all questions pertaining to the welfare of man in this 
life. When properly cultivated, it sits in judgment 
upon every act of our lives, regulates every emotion, 
restrains every passion, and directs it into legitimate 
channels. In short, it is at once the tenure by which 
man holds his free moral agency and the power that 
enables him to fit his soul for eternity. 



TWO INSTINCTS IN THE INDIVIDUAL. 1 83 

But, as before remarked, an agency was necessary 
to enforce the decrees of the tribunal of reason upon 
the mind of the soul. This was rendered possible by 
the limitations of the subjective faculties. This limi- 
tation, as I have before pointed out, consists of the 
absence of inductive power in the subjective mind. 
It was, indeed, this limitation that rendered a brain 
necessary as a part of the physical organism, and 
under the law of appetency it was this necessity that 
impelled its development. When the brain was de- 
veloped, it swayed the dominant mental energy by 
virtue of its power to reason, and its consequent 
ability to take the initiative in those intelligent actions 
that were rendered necessary from time to time in 
consequence of constantly increasing complexities of 
environment. The subjective minds of the lower 
animals were therefore dominated by the sugges- 
tions of their objective minds, precisely as the sub- 
jective mind of man is now controlled. In fact, the 
supremacy of suggestion was even more perfect, 
theoretically at least, with animals than with men, for 
the reason that all intelligence in animals pertains to 
self-preservation and evolution. The objective intel- 
ligence therefore ministered to the wants and neces- 
sities and propensities of animal nature just the same 
as it contributed to its safety. 

But with man it is different. Questions of moral- 
ity, ethics, and religion occupy man's attention, and 
require the restraint or regulation of the animal pro- 
pensities. Hence it is that the control by the power 
of suggestion is not so easy and certain in man as it 
is in animals. Nevertheless, the subjective mind of 
man is limited by the same absence of inductive 



1 84 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

powers, and the law of suggestion prevails. Hence 
the frequent contests for supremacy between the 
two minds, — the mind of reason and the mind of 
emotion, the mind of judgment and the mind of 
passion. • 

It may be here remarked that this contest has been 
experienced by every normal man and every normal 
woman of mature years. It is the one phenomenal 
manifestation of duality of mind that is experienced, 
under normal conditions, by everybody. The other 
faculties of the subjective mind are less in evidence. 
The purely intellectual faculties, for instance, rarely 
appear above the threshold of normal consciousness. 
They sometimes appear in cases of genius; but as 
Lombroso, 1 more clearly than any one else, has 
pointed out, genius itself is intensely abnormal. The 
same may be said of the faculties of telepathy and 
telekinesis, modified only by the character of the 
manifestations and the nature of the abnormality. 

But the emotions are constantly near the surface, 
so much so, indeed, that some of those who adhere 
to the dual hypothesis are inclined to the opinion 
that the objective mind itself is endowed with emo- 
tional faculties. This, however, is an error that will 
be made obvious by a moment's consideration of the 
salient facts. 

Thus, to locate the emotions in the reasoning mind 
would be to handicap it with that which would limit 
if it did not destroy its " judicial independence. ,, 
This, on the principle of adaptation of function to 
purpose, which prevails in all nature, would be a 
sufficient reason for keeping the judicial mind free 

1 See "The Man of Genius." 



TWO INSTINCTS IN THE INDIVIDUAL. 1 85 

from the influence of selfish emotions. This, how- 
ever, is merely a reason why the emotions should not 
be located in the reasoning mind. But it should 
not be forgotten that, in all of nature's laws, that 
which should not be is not, and that which should 
be is. We may rest assured, therefore, on a priori 
grounds, that nature's mental tribunal, which was 
so obviously instituted for the purpose of providing 
a guide and a mentor for the body and the soul in 
their journey through the dangers and temptations 
of earthly existence, is not handicapped by faculties 
that would preclude the possibility of a dispassionate 
performance of its functions. 

The facts bearing upon the question are many, 
prominent among which are these : The crucial fact 
is that the emotional faculties antedated the brain 
by many millions of years ; and since no member of 
the old school of psychology has been able to tell us 
when or by what process they were transferred to 
the new organ, we are justified in assuming, on a 
priori grounds, that the transfer has never been 
made. Logically, therefore, we have a right to hold 
that position until the contrary has been demon- 
strated; or at least until such a posteriori reasons 
are advanced as will show the position to be unten- 
able. But it happens that the latter all conspire to 
sustain the position. For instance, the warring of 
the parts, from the agonies of which St. Paul prayed 
to be delivered, or the conflict between reason 
and passion of which we have already spoken, pre- 
sents indubitable evidence that two distinct mental 
organisms, actuated by antagonistic motives, are con-, 
testing for supremacy. 



1 86 * THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

Again, the facts of suggestion demonstrate the 
principle of duality. Thus, normally the brain mind, 
or objective mind, controls the subjective mind, in- 
cluding the emotions, just in proportion to the com- 
parative development of the two. But when the 
action of the brain is inhibited, as in hypnotism, the 
emotions can be controlled by the suggestions of 
another. And this may be done even against reason, 
experience, or the evidences of the senses. The 
only exception to this rule is when the suggestions 
conflict with conscience. Of this more will be said 
hereinafter. Now, the fact that the emotions can be 
controlled by suggestion under any circumstances 
so far as to nullify the facts of experience, is indu- 
bitable evidence that they belong to the subjective 
mind. And when to this is added the correlative 
fact that the reasoning, or objective, mind is not and 
cannot be so controlled ; but that, on the contrary, 
it normally has the power to control the subjective 
mind by suggestion, we have an overwhelming array 
of evidence that the two minds are distinct organisms, 
possessing independent powers, operating by diverse 
methods and differentiated by distinctive limitations. 

It will now be seen that in the great conflict be- 
tween evil and good, in the great struggle between 
right and wrong, man is not handicapped by a 
preponderance of evil in his nature. On the con- 
trary, the strongest instinct of his soul impels him 
forward in the path of progress toward a realization 
of the highest ideals of the Master, and reason is on 
the side of right. 

In this connection it has often been asked why 
it is that the subjective mind — the mind of the 



TWO INSTINCTS IN THE INDIVIDUAL. 1 87 

immortal soul — is subordinated to the mind that 
perishes ; why it is that it is limited in its reasoning 
powers, — why it is dominated and constantly con- 
trolled by the power of suggestion. These are perti- 
nent and far-reaching questions; and if they could 
not be answered clearly and definitely, and the 
methods of control and the processes of training and 
development clearly pointed out, the hypothesis would 
be unworthy of a moment's serious consideration. 

In attempting a reply to these questions we must 
premise that, the foundation having been laid by 
the facts and arguments in the foregoing chapters, 
what follows will be largely in the nature of a state- 
ment of conclusions. 

In the first place, it must be remarked that, since 
God's method of creation is by a process of progres- 
sive development in accordance with an immutable 
law, and since it is evident that man is the final 
goal of organic evolution, it follows that the poten- 
tialities of manhood were necessarily inherent in his 
primordial ancestry. That is to say, every essential 
faculty of the subjective mind of man existed, incho- 
ate and potential, in the mind of the lowest unicellu- 
lar organism ; and after the brain was evolved, every 
faculty, objective and subjective, that man possesses 
thus existed in all his ancestry that were endowed 
with brain faculties. No evolutionist will gainsay 
this proposition ; for it is the essential implication 
of the evolutionary hypothesis. 

It follows that all the animal passions and pro- 
pensities are the inalienable hereditaments of man. 
After what has been said in preceding chapters, how- 
ever, the statement will not seem so shocking as the 



1 88 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

words might seem to indicate ; for it is now evident 
that what we have been in the habit of stigmatizing 
as the " lowest instincts" of animals is primordial 
altruism ; and that these same instincts, when normally 
developed, refined, purified, elevated, and directed by 
an enlightened conscience into legitimate channels in 
man, are converted into the noblest impulses, and 
are promotive of the highest and purest altruistic 
devotion of which the souls of men are capable. 
Man need not, therefore, be ashamed of the mental 
attributes of his humble ancestors, since his noblest 
faculties were inherited from them, and the quality, 
character, and value of the heritage depend upon 
his own volition, — depend upon the use he makes 
of it. The parable of the talents is directly in point; 
and it is one of the finest illustrations of the wisdom 
of the Master that have been handed down to us. 

Here, then, we have two facts to correlate. The 
first is the fact that the faculties possessed by 
man existed, inchoate, in the lower animals. The 
second is that the subjective mind of each is limited 
by the law of suggestion ; or, what is an equivalent 
statement, it is incapable of inductive reasoning. 

Now, the first explanation that the inquirer will 
demand is, Why is the subjective mind thus limited 
in its powers? To that question only a provisional 
answer can be made in this immediate connection; 
namely, that it appears to be because the subjective 
mind or entity was designed for a higher ultimate 
destiny; and hence only such faculties were given to 
it as would be useful in that higher plane of exist- 
ence. Hence inductive powers were not given to it, 
for the reason that such a faculty would be useless 



TWO INSTINCTS IN THE INDIVIDUAL. 1 89 

to a being who is endowed with the power of intuitive 
perception of the laws of its being, or, in other words, 
of all essential truth pertaining to its state of exist- 
ence. I have, however, touched upon this topic in 
earlier chapters of this book, and have treated it more 
fully elsewhere. 1 It is reiterated here only for the 
purpose of making the present statement complete. 

Be the reasons what they may, the facts remain as 
stated, namely, (1) that man inherited all his facul- 
ties, passions, and propensities from the lower animals ; 
and (2) that the subjective mind is, and always has 
been, controlled by the suggestions of the objective 
mind. 

Now, this control was easy and without friction so 
long as the whole energies of the dual mind were 
absorbed in providing for the necessities and avoiding 
the dangers incident to a purely animal existence. 
But when man appeared, and when, in the process 
of development, he emerged from a state of primitive 
savagery, he gradually became conscious of the fact 
that his environment was no longer purely physical. 
In other words, he gradually became conscious of 
his status as a moral being, having duties to perform 
toward his fellow-men. With that came a sense of 
dependence upon some higher power, together with 
a sense of duty or obligation to that higher power. 

In short, the time came when it was necessary to 
restrain and control the animal passions and propen- 
sities in deference to the rights of others. And it 
was then that the wisdom of investing the objective 
mind with the power to control those passions and to 

1 For a full discussion of the subject, see " A Scientific Demon- 
stration of the Future Life." 



190 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN 

direct their exercise and development became mani- 
fest. In other words, it was then that the utility of 
the law of suggestion was demonstrated; for that 
is the law by virtue of which reason became normally 
the dominating power of the duplex mental organ- 
ism. That is the law under the provisions of which 
mortal man was made a free moral agent; for it 
invests him with full power to train his soul for weal 
/ or woe for this world and the world to come. 

The process by which this training is accomplished 
is precisely the same in man as secondary instincts 
were acquired by the lower animals after a brain had 
been evolved and become a part of the mental equip- 
ment of sentient creatures. That is to say, the in- 
stincts of self-preservation and appetency together 
constitute the primary impulse which actuates man 
substantially as it did the lower animals. The objec- 
tive mind, now as then, reasons out the problems of 
life as they are presented, and decides upon the best 
course to pursue; and the subjective mind accepts 
the suggestion, acts upon it, and in due time the 
course of conduct becomes habitual, then instinctive 
and inheritable. Thus, the objective mind is purely 
utilitarian ; and being devoid of emotion, it coldly 
reasons out the problems as they are presented, but 
always with an eye single to the question of benefit 
to the individual or the species. The subjective 
mind, on the other hand, accepts the utilitarian 
suggestion, and when the course of conduct once 
becomes instinctive, or, in other words, firmly fixed 
in the subjective mind, the impulse to carry it out is 
converted into an emotion, or a moral principle, or 
both, according to the nature of the action. 



CHAPTER X. 

EVOLUTION OF THE TWO INSTINCTS IN THE STATE. 

The same Laws of Development prevail in States as in Individuals. 

— All Aggregations have their Origin in Intelligent Appreciation 
of the Necessity for Mutual Protection. — Reason teaches Mutual 
Helpfulness and Forbearance. — Churches, Schools, and Benevo- 
lent Institutions follow in their Order. — Altruism is intelligently 
practised. — Habit converts it into an Instinctive Emotion. — In 
due Time Patriotism becomes Instinctive. — It is developed in 
Proportion to Beneficence of Institutions. — Foreign War the 
Supreme Test of Patriotism. — Capable of Indefinite Expansion. — 
Its Origin in Parental Instinct. — May be expanded so as to em- 
brace all Humanity. — Its Highest Manifestations in the most 
Progressive Nations. — In such Nations it approaches Universal 
Altruism. — It becomes more than mere Love of Country. — It 
becomes the Missionary Agent of Christian Civilization. — Trade 
and Commerce its Promoters. — The Incentive to all Effort and 
all Progress. — It is God's Method of inciting Men to Action. — 
Contrast with the " Gentle Savage," who neither works nor fights. 

— Hunger as an Intellectual Stimulant alike with Animals and 
Men. — Nations must be Prosperous before they can be Altru- 
istic. — God's Bounty from a Full Store. — Accumulations of 
Wealth cannot properly be discouraged, yet God requires an 
Accounting. 

ONLY a few words will be required to show, in 
outline, that the principles we have been con- 
sidering apply with the same force and pertinency 
to aggregated humanity, — to tribes, communities, 
states, and nations. 

Thus, when states are formed by an aggregation 
of communities, it is the result of a process of rea- 
soning by which the conclusion is reached that the 



192 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

interests of each and all will be best subserved by a 
union of forces, financial and military. That is to 
say, the principle of self-preservation enters into the 
transaction in its incipiency; the higher emotions 
having little or nothing to do with it at that time 
But reason teaches them that inasmuch as their 
interests are identical, and mutual protection is their 
object, they should cultivate a mutual regard, for- 
bearance, and helpfulness. Churches, schools, col- 
leges, and eleemosynary institutions soon follow, with 
all that they imply; all being the outgrowth of an 
intelligent understanding of the best interests of the 
community or the state. In due time, however, — 
after these " intelligent actions have been performed 
for several generations, they are converted into 
instincts and are then inherited. " The altruistic 
instinct has become a factor in the national character, 
and it has become an emotional impulse of supreme 
potency. We call it " patriotism/' and define the 
word as " love of country." It is that, but in its 
higher implications it is infinitely more ; for it com- 
prises, not only a sentimental love of one's country, 
prompting obedience to its laws and to acts pro- 
motive of its welfare, but to the sacrifice of property 
and life itself in defence of its existence, its rights, 
and its institutions. 

The patriotism of a free and enlightened people 
is, in fact, one of the best illustrations of the har- 
monious development of the two instincts. The self- 
regarding element enters into it, in that protection of 
the whole includes protection of its component parts ; 
and this applies alike to life and to property. All acts 
having for their object a provision for the common 



TWO INSTINCTS IN THE STATE. 1 93 

defence, or for the promotion of national prosperity, 
must be set down to the credit of the self-regarding 
instinct, although the altruistic element may enter 
into many of them. But it will invariably be found 
that a free and enlightened people, after a few gener- 
ations of autonomous government, are more strongly 
moved by altruistic impulses than by those that are 
purely self-regarding; and that those acts which 
inure to the benefit of future generations far over- 
balance the others in number and importance. It 
is sometimes difficult to determine when the patriotic 
altruism of such a people ceases to be prompted 
solely by an enlightened reason and is converted 
into a national instinctive emotion. But the time 
always comes when that question is no longer in 
doubt; and that time is when war with a foreign 
nation is imminent. When such a time comes, if a 
thousand volunteers offer their services for every one 
that is called for, we may rest assured that patriot- 
ism in that country is a national instinct, and with 
that people altruism is the dominant national im- 
pulse. I mention war as a test of the instinctive 
character of patriotism, for the reason that until the 
representative manhood of a nation is put to that 
test it can never be surely known whether or not the 
patriotic impulse is stronger than the instinct of self- 
preservation. If it is, we may safely conclude that 
in that nation the two instincts have been har- 
moniously developed, and that altruism, or other- 
regarding, with all its implications of progressive 
development of civilization, is the dominating national 
characteristic. 

Patriotism, like every other virtue, may be mis- 
*3 



194 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

directed; but the fact remains that it is essentially 
altruistic. It is, moreover, fairly representative of 
progressive civilization, for it is capable of indefinite 
expansion, and it keeps exact pace with the develop- 
ment of human intelligence and national virtue. The 
latter proposition is demonstrated by the fact that in 
those nations which enjoy the highest degree of 
Christian civilization, and whose governments are the 
most altruistic, the patriotism of the people is the 
most intense and practical in peace and potent in 
war. 

That it is capable of indefinite expansion is evi- 
denced by the history of the world. Having its 
origin in the parental instinct, it began with the 
primordial cell as a primary instinct. In the process 
of development secondary instincts were evolved, 
resulting in gregarious habits in the more intelligent 
animals. When man appeared and began to organ- 
ize the basis of human society, the equivalent of 
what we call patriotism was among the first of the 
secondary instincts developed. It had its basis in 
the two primordial instincts ; but its first manifesta- 
tions were the results of an intelligent adaptation 
to environment. This was eventually converted 
into an instinct, and became an inheritable attribute 
of mind. 

Now, every step in the progressive development 
of human government is taken in precisely the same 
way. Thus, when tribes are aggregated into com- 
munities, it is primarily the result of an intelligent 
appreciation of the fact that self-preservation for the 
tribe and security for future generations will be best 
provided for by a union of forces. The same is 



TWO INSTINCTS IN THE STATE. 1 95 

true of every new aggregation of interests and forces 
by which states and nations are formed under nor- 
mal conditions. Reason points out the path of 
safety for present and future generations, and in- 
culcates a policy promotive of internal harmony 
and mutual forbearance and regard. These are 
the suggestions of the aggregated national intelli- 
gence. At first, however, there are conflicting 
interests which give rise to local selfishness, and 
thus counter suggestions are made which retard 
the general acceptance of the situation. But in 
due time the interests are harmonized, and the 
advantages of union become manifest to all. The 
natural result is a growing regard for the institutions 
that afford protection to life and property and 
provide for the comfort and prosperity of future 
generations. And this is the emotion that eventu- 
ally develops into that passionate love of country 
which has been designated as patriotism. The 
suggestions of reason have been fully accepted by 
the subjective mind. The resultant acts have been 
performed until they have become habitual. A 
secondary instinct has been created ; and hence- 
forth it is a potent element in the national charac- 
ter, and, like all other instincts and attributes of the 
subjective mind, it is the heritage of posterity. 

It seems evident, therefore, that the higher mani- 
festations of the attribute of mind which we call 
patriotism are much more than a mere emotional 
sentiment of love for one's country; for the latter 
may be inspired by the associations of childhood, 
by the memories of parents and the companions of 
youth, or even by the memories of the beautiful 



196 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN 

scenery of one's native land, — " the orchard, the 
meadow, the deep tangled wildwood," or any loved 
spot which one's infancy knew. No one is exempt 
from the emotions inspired by such fond recollec- 
tions. But that emotion is not patriotism in the 
higher sense of the word. It has little or nothing in 
common with that lofty spirit of self-abnegation which 
prompts one to sacrifice all that he has, even life 
itself, for the preservation of the institutions of his 
country. Such a spirit can only be inspired by an 
intelligent appreciation of institutions that are worth 
preserving. Hence it is that the higher attribute of 
mind which is called patriotism exists as a national 
characteristic of the people of any country in exact 
proportion to the beneficence of its institutions and 
the ability of its people to appreciate them intelli- 
gently. When this universal truth is considered in 
connection with the fact that the higher patriotism 
we have described is in itself essentially altruistic, the 
conclusion is inevitable that the emotion possesses a 
more profound significance than is expressed or 
implied by the term by which it is designated. 
It is, in fact, the national or collective expression 
or manifestation of the " evolutionary instinct/' the 
progressive principle, the constant force, the im- 
pellent energy — creative, progressive, and essentially 
altruistic — that developed the organic world from 
the moneron to man, and constitutes the motive 
power that impels mankind onward and upward in 
the path of progressive development in every sphere 
of legitimate human activity. 

If this proposition is true, there are two evidences 
of its truth that we might reasonably expect to find: 



TWO INSTINCTS IN THE STATE. 1 97 

First, we should be sure to find its highest manifes- 
tation in those nations that are in the very van of 
human progress, for there . is necessarily a causal 
connection between them. That is to say, we 
might expect to find the people of those nations 
whose governments most clearly and practically 
recognize the rights of man to be the most en- 
lightened, enterprising, and progressive in peace, 
and in war the bravest and the most devoted and 
self-sacrificing. 

Secondly, we should have a right to expect that 
eventually this same altruistic emotion would refuse 
to be circumscribed by the limitations of race, color, 
or geographical boundaries ; and that, on occasion, 
we should find the people of great nations moved 
by one common altruistic impulse to right the wrongs 
of suffering humanity in other lands than their own. 

The impulse, it is true, might be misdirected. All 
missionary effort is liable to be misdirected and 
carried forward on impracticable lines. I am not 
arguing that question in reference to any real or 
supposable case. The point is that the impulse is 
real, that it is altruistic in its very essence, that its 
existence as an individual or a national characteristic 
reaches out toward universal altruism and points to 
that goal as the manifest destiny of humanity. 

Again, it may be said that selfishness is the main- 
spring of missionary effort alike in individuals and in 
nations; that the individual missionary is inspired 
by a contemplation of his salary, and a nation by the 
prospect of increased trade and commerce. It is 
true that as long as man is compelled to eat in order 
to live, selfish considerations are liable to enter into 



198 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN 

all human transactions, however altruistic they may 
be in their essential nature. That particular neces- 
sity of animal existence, however, was one of the ac- 
tive agencies of organic evolution ; and in man it 
is still the primary incentive to exertion. Emerson 
(I think it was Emerson) once remarked that " every 
man is as lazy as he dares to be." He might well 
have added that the same is true of every sentient 
creature. Even the u little busy bee," who in North- 
ern latitudes is compelled to " improve each shining 
hour " in order to provide food for the winter, utterly 
refuses to do anything of the kind after he is trans- 
ported to a land of perpetual sunshine and flowers. 1 
The truth of the remark, so far as it pertains to man, 
is illustrated by the fact that " in isolated parts of 
the earth, where the natural supply of food is abun- 
dant, as in sundry tropical islands of the Pacific 
Ocean, men have ceased from warfare and become 
gentle and docile without rising above the intellect- 
ual level of savagery." 2 It must be added that this 
particular gentle savage has also ceased from work, 
and for him a breech-clout is a wardrobe of excep- 
tional extravagance. He is " just as lazy as he dares 
to be;" and he dares everything because he has 
nothing to lose by idleness and nothing to gain by 
work. He is peaceful because he has no rights 
worth invading. Spontaneous nature supplies his 
daily food. In winter he is clothed with the sun; 
and his summer garment is the shade of the tree 
that drops his daily bread into his open mouth. 
Of course he is gentle and docile ; of course he is 

1 Romanes, Mental Evolution in Animals. 

2 Fiske, Destiny of Man. 



TWO INSTINCTS IN THE STATE. 199 

lazy ; of course he has not risen above the intellect- 
ual level of savagery; and of course he never will 
rise above that level. An exceptionally unfavorable 
environment has deprived him of that incentive to 
activity that is inspired by the instinct of self-pres- 
ervation alike in the lower animals and in man- 
kind, namely, the necessity of struggling for daily 
sustenance. 

It is this necessity for food that causes animals and 
savages to fight and to work. But it is also this 
^necessity that sharpens their wits and develops their 
understanding. And in the highest civilization it is 
still a powerful agency for the development of the 
human intellect; for, whilst peaceful competition in 
trade and commerce has largely taken the place of 
brute force as a means of supplying the necessities 
of mankind, it requires the exercise of all the powers 
of the mind to achieve success. The necessity for 
procuring subsistence, therefore, is not only constant 
and imperative in itself, but it compels the cultivation 
of the intellectual faculties ; and in the larger opera- 
tions of trade and foreign commerce it facilitates 
intercourse with the world at large and promotes 
harmonious foreign relations. These results, in turn, 
directly or indirectly, are promotive of the develop- 
ment of altruistic emotions in a constantly broaden- 
ing field, the grand result of which must be to bring 
about, on a national scale, the normally harmonious 
relation between the instinct of self-preservation and 
the altruistic, progressive, evolutionary instinct that 
moves the world toward the final goal of universal 
altruism. 

No ; trade with foreign nations is not incompatible 



200 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

with the exercise of the most exalted beneficence 
toward them. On the contrary, it affords the great- 
est facilities for the establishment and maintenance 
of such relations. Besides, nations, as well as individ- 
uals, must be prosperous before they can be altruistic. 
The instinct that accumulates provides the only means 
for the exercise of benevolence. The hand of Charity 
would be useless if it could not grasp the gifts she 
would bestow. The bounties which God bestows 
upon his children are taken from a full store. 

On the other hand, it should be remembered by 
nations, as well as individuals, that God requires a 
strict accounting for the uses for which his bounty is 
employed, and that to whomsoever much is given, of 
him shall much be required. 

Trade in itself, when honestly and properly con- 
ducted, with due regard to the rights of all concerned, 
is a happy illustration of the harmonious develop- 
ment of the two instincts, — the self-regarding and the 
other-regarding, — for whilst it furnishes subsistence 
for those who are engaged in it, the surplus accumu- 
lations invariably redound to the benefit of others. 
The accumulation of wealth, therefore, cannot prop- 
erly be discouraged ; but it will be a happy day for 
humanity when all millionaires shall hold it to be 
"disgraceful to die rich/' 1 It is an encouraging sign 
of the times that the example has been set by one 
who is daily giving evidence of the sincerity of his 
words by munificent benefactions on lines of purest 
altruism. 

I have now briefly indicated the lines upon which 
nations progress from savagery to civilization, — from 
1 The words of Andrew Carnegie. 



TWO INSTINCTS IN THE STATE. 201 

instinctive self-regarding to instinctive altruism. I 
have shown that nations and individuals are governed 
by the same psychological laws, and that those laws 
are the same that prevail in the life of the lower 
animals. The law of suggestion has been the mov- 
ing agency of psychic development from the time 
when a brain was developed in animals until now ; 
the process of development in animals has been by 
intelligent adjustments to environment, which, by 
being frequently performed, have become automatic 
in the individual, and then inherited till they become 
automatic habits in the race (Romanes), or, in other 
words, until they are transformed into secondary in- 
stincts. When man appeared he was governed by 
the same law of development, and his whole character 
is made up of hereditary instincts thus acquired, plus 
the sum of his individual acquirements. I have 
shown that the psychical character of aggregated 
humanity, whether of tribes, communities, states, or 
nations, is developed in precisely the same way and 
under precisely the same laws. That is to say, it 
has been shown that secondary instincts are formed, 
first by intelligent adjustments to environment, re- 
sulting in habits that eventually become converted 
into instincts and are then inherited, till they become 
habits in the state or nation ; and that the tendency 
or trend of these developments is always onward and 
upward toward perfection ; that in the organic world 
the final goal was man ; that in men and nations the 
final goal is universal altruism. I have shown that 
behind this process of development there exists, in- 
herent in all sentient creatures, from the primordial 
cell to man, a constant, forceful, impellent energy 



202 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

that irresistibly impels all living beings forward in 
the lines of progressional development ; that this 
energy is embodied, so to speak, in a primary in- 
stinct; that in its every form of manifestation, from 
the moneron to man, it is essentially altruistic in that 
it constantly prompts to acts which redound to the 
benefit of future generations ; that it is normally 
paramount to all other instincts, including the in- 
stinct of self-preservation ; and hence, that the most 
potent psychic force in nature, normally developed, 
irresistibly impels mankind toward the final consum- 
mation which was foreshadowed by the Man of Naza- 
reth, — universal altruism. 

It remains to show that the higher attributes of the 
character of man, namely, his moral and religious 
nature, are developed under the same laws and by the 
same processes that we have been considering. The 
next chapter will be devoted to a brief examination of 
that process. 



CHAPTER XI. 

EVOLUTION OF CONSCIENCE AND RELIGIOUS 
PRINCIPLES. 

Normal Control of the Subjective Mind. — When Conscience becomes 
Instinctive. — A Secondary Instinct. — The Ultimate Instinctive 
Emotion of the Human Soul. — Dominates all other Emotions. 

— It was developed precisely the same as were all other Second- 
ary Instincts. — It was the Result of the Inductive Reasoning of 
the Objective Mind. — Facts of Observation and Experience 
resulted in the Maxim, " Honesty is the Best Policy." — This is 
Mr. Spencer's Conscience. — It culminates just where Real Con- 
science begins. — It is the Utilitarian Conscience. — It is a Step 
in the Process of Development, not the Process itself. — It 
constitutes a Suggestion to the Subjective Mind. — The Sugges- 
tion is accepted and deductively carried to Higher Conclusions. 

— It is thus reinforced by every Religious Principle or Emotion. 

— It is further assisted by Intuition. — As with the Lower Animals, 
so with Man. — Every Step in Advance is accompanied by Increased 
Powers of Intuitive Perception of Essential Truth. — Jesus of 
Nazareth is an Example. — The Older Prophets. — Conscience, 
however, may be perverted. — Hence the Inquisition and Reli- 
gious Wars ; hence Cranks. — Perverted or unperverted, it is the 
Strongest Emotion of the Human Soul. — Perverted Conscience 
the Exception ; hence Progress toward the Higher Altruism. — It 
is when Conscience becomes Instinctive that the Subjective Mind 
assumes the Ascendancy. — The Suggestions of Conscience over- 
shadow all other Suggestions. — At the Threshold of the Moral 
and Religious Realm the Soul asserts its Normal Supremacy. 

WHEN I say that there comes a time in the 
history of every fully and normally developed 
man or woman when the subjective mind rightfully 
and normally assumes the ascendancy, it will seem 
like a contradiction of what has been said of the law 
of suggestion and of the normal dominancy of the 



204 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN 

objective mind under that law. It is, nevertheless, 
true that the time does come when the subjective 
mind assumes a normal and a rightful supremacy. It 
is not, however, an exceptional violation of the law 
of suggestion, but a legitimate and direct consequence 
of that law. The time when this psychological phe- 
nomenon is witnessed is when conscience becomes an 
instinctive quality or emotion of the individual. A 
very few words will make my meaning clear. 

Conscience, like every other emotion of the human 
mind that distinguishes it from the mind of the brute, 
is a secondary instinct. It is, in fact, the ultimate 
instinctive emotion of the human mind as manifested 
in this life. It is, moreover, the strongest emotion of 
the human soul, for it is reinforced by all the higher 
instinctive emotions that characterize mankind in 
the higher stages of civilization. 

And here let me say, parenthetically, that in deal- 
ing with the subject of the religious emotions I shall 
take as my example the normal development of 
conscience ; and that I employ that attribute as an 
illustration because it is, in a sense, inclusive of all 
the higher emotions of the soul. 

Conscience, in the ordinary acceptation of the 
term, covers everything in man's nature that has to 
do with the decision and direction of moral conduct. 
Ethically considered, it has been defined as " the 
power or faculty in man by which he distinguishes 
between the right and wrong in conduct and character, 
and which imperatively commands and obligates him 
to do the right and abstain from doing the wrong." 1 

The latter half of this definition may be accepted 

1 Standard Dictionary.. 



CONSCIENCE AND RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES. 205 

as a sufficiently exact definition of conscience for 
present purposes. But the first part is descriptive of 
an intellectual, perceptive, discriminative power or 
faculty, and not of an emotion. The impulse that 
" imperatively commands and obligates " is emotive, 
and not the discriminative power that distinguishes. 
It is true, as we shall see later on, that the discrim- 
inative power may become intuitional, but the dis- 
tinction holds good nevertheless. 

The power or faculty in man which ordinarily 
distinguishes between right and wrong was originally 
purely intellectual. It was the result of long ages of 
observation and experience. In other words, it was 
the result of the exercise of the power of inductive 
reasoning; the observation and experience of hu- 
manity furnishing the facts from which to generalize. 
The grand result of this age-long process was such 
summations of human experience as the maxim, 
" Honesty is the best policy." 

This is the outcome of the reasoning of the purely 
intellectual, unemotional, utilitarian, objective mind. 
It is not a great moral principle. It is not even 
honest. It is a cold statement of a matter of 
policy. It is a statement of a bald fact that can 
be rendered into a homelier phrase without chang- 
ing its meaning in the slightest degree; namely, " On 
the whole, it pays best to deal honestly." It is 
the cold, calculating, commercial conscience of the 
utilitarian world ; but it possesses no more vital 
honesty, morality, or religion than do the statistical 
tables of an insurance actuary. 

It is, however, the best specimen of a conscience 
that is dreamed of in the philosophy of Herbert 



206 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN 

Spencer; and he gives the maxim — " Honesty is the 
best policy " — as the " summation " of human experi- 
ence in the moral and religious world. 1 And this 
conclusion is the direct and only legitimate outcome 
of his " doctrine of utility " and selfishness, of which 
I have before spoken. I do not, however, complain 
of Mr. Spencer's conclusion that the maxim quoted 
is the utilitarian outcome of his doctrine of utility; 
for he is obviously right. What I do object to is his 
doctrine that the maxim is the summation of all 
religious and moral experiences. That is to say, the 
necessary implication of his philosophy is that all 
moral and religious sentiments were antecedent to 
the maxim. He recognizes nothing as the outcome 
of the maxim itself outside of its utility as a rule of 
civil conduct which, if followed strictly, will serve to 
keep men out of the penitentiary. 

Doubtless the world performed many moral and 
religious acts before the maxim was formulated. 
Otherwise there would have been no means of as- 
certaining the comparative utility of good and bad 
actions; and the agnostic world would still be in 
doubt as to which would pay the greatest dividends 
" in the long run/' But Mr. Spencer stops with the 
maxim. It is, in his philosophy, the grand summa- 
tion of moral and religious experiences. It is the 
" conscience " of the Spencerian philosophy, if indeed 
that great philosopher can be said to have recognized 
the existence of such a faculty in the human mind. 
It must be presumed that he did not, since the word 
itself does not appear to form a part of his psychologi- 
cal vocabulary. 

1 Principles of Psychology, part ix. p. 620. 



CONSCIENCE AND RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES. 207 

However, it does not appear that he recognizes 
any higher standard of morality or of religion or 
of altruism, or of human conduct in any of the 
relations of man to his fellow-men or to God, than 
that embraced in the maxim. It is, indeed, im- 
possible that the philosophy of selfishness and the 
doctrine of utility should lead to any other than a 
selfishly utilitarian generalization. From his view- 
point, therefore, Mr. Spencer is logically right in his 
induction. 

But, like most of the other " great principles " of 
the agnostic philosophers, the maxim in question 
is not a principle, or a law of nature, in the proper 
acceptation of the terms. Like natural selection, it 
is incidental to the great law of evolutionary develop- 
ment. It marks a step in the process of progressive 
psychological development, and not the consumma- 
tion of that process. The great psychological con- 
summation of the evolutionary process is universal 
altruism, another name for which is universal hon- 
esty, — not the honesty that is instigated by motives 
of policy ; not the honesty that is based upon careful 
estimates of comparative chances for realizing divi- 
dends, not the honesty that finds its inspiration in the 
statistical tables of a moral actuary ; but an honesty 
that is instigated by an instinctive love of right because 
it is right, by an intuitive apprehension of the eternal 
principles of right, by an irresistible impulse to do 
the right and abstain from doing the wrong. In 
short, the final goal of psychological evolution is the 
development in man of a conscience. 

Now, as before remarked, conscience is a secondary 
instinct; and it is developed precisely as all other 



208 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

secondary instincts are developed. That is to say, 
the first step is an intelligent adaptation to environ- 
ment. The resultant acts constitute suggestions to 
the subjective mind. These suggestions are accepted, 
and the acts gradually become habitual, then auto- 
matic, and are finally converted into inheritable 
instincts. 

The process of developing an instinctive conscience 
is precisely the same in principle. It is much more 
complicated, and it consumes a greater amount of 
time, owing to the infinite complexities of man's en- 
vironment. But the processes are psychologically 
identical. 

Thus, since the advent of civilization, the environ- 
mental conditions to which man finds it necessary to 
adapt himself are largely of a moral, ethical, and 
religious nature. In his dealings with his fellow-men 
he is constantly confronted with conditions that render 
it necessary to decide questions of right and wrong 
and to choose intelligently between the two. In 
other words, the cool, calculating, utilitarian objective 
mind has been engaged, since the dawn of civilization, 
in a process of inductive inquiry having in view the 
solution of the question as to what it is best for man 
to do when he has the power of choice between evil 
and good, between honest dealing with his neighbor 
and selfishness and wrong. The result of this age- 
long induction has been formulated by people of the 
higher civilization — that is, by those who have had 
the benefit of the greatest range of observation and ex- 
perience — in some such generalizations as " Honesty 
is the best policy." 

This, as we have already observed, is the Ultima 



CONSCIENCE AND RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES. 209 

Thule of psychological development in the moral and 
religious worlds, according to the Spencerian philos- 
ophy. It is the conscience of the doctrine of utility. 
Here, then, we must part company with Mr. Spencer 
and his worshippers ; for here is the very beginning, 
the primary step, toward the development of a true 
conscience. 

The intelligent reader has already anticipated me 
when I say that in the process of adapting himself 
to his environment, social, political, moral, and reli- 
gious, man has reasoned up to the conclusion em- 
braced in the maxim ; and that that and kindred 
summations of intelligent observation and experi- 
ence constitute suggestions to the subjective mind ; 
and that the resultant acts, at first intelligent and 
deliberate, afterwards become habitual and auto- 
matic in the individual, and are finally converted 
into instincts. And I may here remark, paren- 
thetically, that this is the only possible process by 
which conscience can become hereditary; for it is 
only those qualities of mind that become what we 
call, for the want of a better term, " instinctive," 
that are inheritable. In other words, it is only 
those qualities or faculties of mind that become 
incorporated into the subjective mind that become 
inheritable characteristics of a race or species. This 
is as true of the higher qualities of mind as it is of 
the instincts of the lower animals. 

Hence it is that when conscience becomes instinc- 
tive it becomes in the highest degree emotional ; 
and it is a matter of common observation that when 
highly developed, and especially when it is re- 
inforced by other instinctive emotions, it is the 

u 



210 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN 

strongest and most powerful emotion of the human 
soul. 

The process of development is easily understood 
by those who have followed me in the earlier chap- 
ters of this book. As already pointed out, the utili- 
tarian suggestion that honesty pays best in the long 
run is instantly seized by the subjective mind. But 
that suggestion is of small moment in itself com- 
pared to the deductions derivable from it. It must 
be remembered in this connection that, whilst the 
subjective mind is incapable of inductive reasoning, 
its deductive powers are potentially perfect. That 
is to say, it cannot institute an independent system 
of gathering facts from which to reason up to gen- 
eral principles ; but once a general principle is estab- 
lished and conveyed to it by suggestion, it will reason 
deductively from that principle to all legitimate, logi- 
cal conclusions with inerrant exactitude. 

Now, the general principle in the case under con- 
sideration is embraced in the maxim quoted above. 
It is a natural deduction to generalize the principle 
still further into " It is always best to do right." 
It is but a matter of deduction to infer that since it 
is always best for man in this world to deal honestly 
with his fellow-men, it must also redound to his bene- 
fit in the world to come. Thus, the instinct of self- 
preservation is appealed to, first, in the maxim itself, 
which pertains to this world, and, secondly, in the 
deduction, which pertains to the next. 

Again, it is but a matter of deduction to infer that 
since it is always best to do right, it must be because 
it is pleasing in the sight of God ; and thus the in- 
stinctive conscience is strongly reinforced by the 
instinct of religious worship. 



CONSCIENCE AND RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES. 211 

I have already spoken of the evolutionary or altru- 
istic instinct as being normally stronger than the 
instinct of self-preservation. It is a matter of the 
most obvious deduction to correlate conscience with 
altruism and thus unite two of the strongest impulses 
of the human soul. 

Again, I have shown elsewhere that when one 
faculty of the subjective mind is excited to activity 
it naturally tends to stimulate all its correlative 
faculties. So true is this that it has passed into a 
proverb, "Pity is akin to love." It has also been 
noted by many philosophers that religious revivals 
tend to the excitation of other than purely religious 
emotions. All these apparent anomalies are easily 
explicable on the theory that all the emotions, when 
normally developed and unperverted, are purely 
altruistic in nature and function, and are therefore 
so intimately interrelated that the excitation of one 
emotion stimulates all its correlatives, especially 
where there are two or more coexistent causes of 
excitation. Thousands of illustrative examples will 
be recalled by every intelligent reader, especially if 
he is acquainted with the abnormal tendencies often 
exhibited by psychics. This, however, is foreign to 
my present purpose, and it is only mentioned for 
the purpose of illustrating my meaning when I say 
that the excitation of one faculty or emotion of the 
subjective mind naturally tends to stimulate all the 
other faculties that are interrelated. 

When, therefore, conscience becomes an active 
principle in the subjective mind, it stimulates every 
emotion or faculty that is concerned with questions 
of right or wrong in human conduct. Now, the one 



212 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

great faculty of the subjective mind that is the nor- 
mal correlative of conscience is the faculty of intui- 
tive perception of essential truth or first principles. 
By essential truth I mean the truth that it is essen- 
tial for each sentient creature to know relative to the 
laws of its being. This knowledge is supplied by 
instinct, and it exists in the subjective mind of each 
sentient being, from the moneron to man ; and it is 
exactly proportioned in each to its stage of develop- 
ment and its consequent needs. 

When, therefore, man becomes highly developed, 
morally and religiously, and conscience has become 
an active principle in his subjective mind, the faculty 
of intuitive perception of essential truth is developed 
in exact proportion. Were this not true, man, espe- 
cially highly developed man, would constitute an 
exception to the general law. We know that it is 
true of the lower animals, from the primordial cell 
upward. We know that man is descended from the 
lower animals, and that the laws of his growth and 
evolutionary development are identical with those of 
his humble ancestry. Besides, we are not without 
examples attesting its truth in relation to man. The 
Great Exemplar was, of course, Jesus of Nazareth. 
His conscience was, without doubt, developed in 
absolute perfection. And we know now that his in- 
tuitive knowledge of the laws of the human soul, 
including the great principles of right and wrong, 
was correspondingly exact. I say we know this, 
because modern science is powerless to disprove one 
essential tenet of his doctrine. It can only confirm. 
Other great exemplars are not wanting, differing 
widely in degree, but attesting the soundness of the 



CONSCIENCE AND RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES. 21$ 

principle. Some of the old prophets were highly 
endowed with the powers of intuition, as shown by 
the wonderful accuracy of some of their previsions. 
Nor are modern instances entirely wanting. This, 
however, is not the proper place to discuss this 
branch of the general subject in detail. It is intro- 
duced here merely for the purpose of completing my 
outline sketch of the process by which conscience is 
developed in normally constituted men and women ; 
and to show what a strong moral energy is resi- 
dent within the man in whom conscience has been 
developed on lines of perfect truth. 

I am speaking, of course, of the normal method 
of developing conscience in the normal man. Con- 
science, however, like every other faculty or quality 
of the human mind, may be perverted by wrong edu- 
cation or an unfavorable environment. The Inquisi- 
tion was the result of perverted conscience. Religious 
wars are frequently the results of perverted or un- 
enlightened conscience. In every-day life, among 
highly civilized peoples, perverted conscience often 
manifests itself in the utter inability of certain classes 
of people to adapt themselves to their environment. 
Thus, the cranky reformer, the fundamental tenet of 
whose creed is that " whatever is, is wrong," is often 
merely a victim of a perverted conscience. It some- 
times amounts to a moral insanity that is just as pro- 
nounced and often as offensive as total depravity. 

But, perverted or unperverted, conscience is by far 
the strongest emotion of the human soul; for the 
veriest physical coward will often face the cannon's 
mouth for conscience* sake, even in a bad cause. 

Fortunately for humanity, perverted conscience is 



214 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN 

the exception rather than the rule. Were it not 
so, mediaeval conditions would still prevail. More 
fortunate still it is for humanity that the inherent 
strength and energy of conscience as an agent of 
progressive development of the good there is in man, 
depends entirely upon the character of the correla- 
tive emotions and faculties that are concerned in its 
development. Thus, if one's conscience is based 
entirely upon the instinct of self-preservation, — that 
is to say, if fear of punishment for wrong-doing is the 
only incentive to right living, — it is an imperfectly 
developed conscience, if indeed it can properly be 
designated as conscience. The same is true even if 
it is reinforced by the instinct of religious worship. 
Again, a conscience that is based entirely upon the 
altruistic instinct or emotion is still lacking in some 
of the essential elements of a perfectly developed 
conscience. 

I assume that in all the cases above mentioned 
there is still lacking an essential element, for one very 
good and, as I think, sufficient reason ; and that is 
that history does not furnish an example where such 
partial developments were materially assisted by in- 
tuition. On the other hand, we have numerous 
examples, culminating in Jesus of Nazareth, where 
a conscience based upon a harmonious development 
of the three great instincts — namely, the instinct of 
self-preservation, the altruistic instinct, and the in- 
stinct of religious worship — was reinforced by an in- 
tuitive perception of the eternal principles of right 
and wrong. 

Now, I have already pointed out the fact that each 
sentient creature is endowed with an instinctive or 



CONSCIENCE AND RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES. 21 5 

intuitive knowledge of the laws of its being, and that 
this knowledge is exactly proportioned to its stage of 
mental or physical development, or, in other words, 
in exact proportion to its wants and necessities. I 
have also shown that man constitutes no exception 
to this rule. It is also true that this instinctive 
knowledge is never attained in advance of conditions 
that render it necessary. 

We have a right to expect, therefore, that when 
the process of developing man's moral nature com- 
mences, and the proper stage of development has 
been reached, his intuitions will be developed in 
exact proportion to his needs. Accordingly we find 
that, in the evolution of conscience, at a certain, 
definite stage of that evolution, man does develop 
the power of intuitive perception of the essential 
truth pertaining to conscience. Obviously the only 
general truth answering to the necessities of con- 
science is that embraced in the principles of right 
and wrong. That is the knowledge required to en- 
able man to perform all his duties in perfection. 
We further find that man never attains that intuition 
until he seeks to develop his conscience upon the 
basis of the three primary instincts, never excluding 
or subordinating that of religious worship. 

The inevitable inference is, man owes duties to his 
God as well as to his fellow-men and to himself, the 
last-named being always subordinate to the others; 
and that a perfect conscience must be based upon 
those instincts which include all three lines of duty. 

It is obvious that any one of the three instincts 
would be sufficient to convert the principle involved 
in the suggestion into an instinctive impulse of dom- 



216 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

inating potency. But when the three are combined, 
as they are in every normally constituted person, 
conscience becomes an instinctive emotion of such 
supreme power that the gates of hell cannot pre- 
vail against it. It is then the strongest instinct of 
the human soul. Then it is that men will face the 
cannon's mouth for conscience* sake. Then it is 
that men and women will welcome torture and tribu- 
lation in this world, and calmly yield up their lives 
at the stake rather than surrender the convictions of 
conscience. 

Thus it is, and then it is, that the subjective mind 
of man, for the first time in all its history, rightfully 
and normally assumes the ascendancy. It is not 
because the law of suggestion has been suspended or 
modified, but because the auto-suggestions of con- 
science are more potent than any suggestions that 
can be brought to bear against its convictions. This 
is the safeguard which the laws of nature throw 
around every human soul that is possessed of a con- 
science, and which forever guards and protects it, 
under all circumstances and conditions, from the 
suggestions of crime or immorality. 

It will thus be seen that at the very threshold of 
the moral and spiritual realm the soul stands ready 
to assume its rightful supremacy. It is its own do- 
main, its native realm, for it extends over from 
time to eternity; and the soul alone is concerned 
with both. It is then that the soul becomes the " in- 
ward monitor," the " still small voice " which leads 
mankind in the ways of truth and righteousness. 



apart II. 

PSYCHOLOGY AND CHRISTIAN THEISM. 



$art II. 

PSYCHOLOGY AND CHRISTIAN THEISM. 



CHAPTER I. 

PRELIMINARY. 

Facts of Evolution to be distinguished from Theories of Evolution- 
ists. — Theistic Argument, per se, to be based upon Facts presented 
by Antitheistic Evolutionists, — Darwin, Haeckel, and Romanes. 
— Their Arguments for Evolution to be utilized as a Basis of 
Theistic Conclusions. — Exception to be taken to Subsidiary 
Hypotheses. — Distinction to be drawn between Theisms. — The- 
ism, per se 9 proven by Facts of Evolution. — Christian Theism by 
Evolution and Psychology. — The World interested alone in 
Christian Theism. — Is Christian Civilization founded on Truth 
or Error ? — The New Psychology a Necessary Factor. — The 
Old Psychologies Inadequate to a Solution of the Problem. 

IN order that there may be no misunderstanding 
either on the part of the general reader or of 
possible atheistic critics, I desire to have it clearly 
understood at the outset that the theistic argument 
which follows will be based upon the facts of organic 
and mental evolution as stated by Darwin and his 
followers. Among the latter I desire to make par- 
ticular mention of the names of Haeckel and Ro- 
manes; of the former because (i) he was a follower 
of Darwin, (2) he was indorsed by Darwin in the 
later editions of his works, (3) he treated the subject 



220 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

of man's evolution more fully than did Darwin, and 
(4) because he was more radically atheistic in his 
expressed conclusions than was Darwin himself. I 
mention Romanes for practically the same reasons. 
He was a follower and an intimate personal friend of 
Darwin, and his views at the time he wrote the works 
from which I have quoted were as pronouncedly 
atheistic as were those of either Darwin or Haeckel. 1 

I am thus particular in segregating the facts stated 
by the evolutionary philosophers from their theories 
or hypotheses for the reason that I accept their facts 
and shall base my argument upon them. I also ac- 
cept and shall insist upon the general theory that 
man is descended from the lower animals ; that the 
potentials of manhood resided in the primordial cell ; 
that all instincts, primary and secondary, are inherited 
as long as they are useful ; and finally, that man is 
the summum bonurn> so to speak, of all ancestral forms 
and faculties, — the final goal of organic evolution. 

These are the principal and the valid claims of 
the evolutionists, and those claims I shall steadily 
insist upon. I shall also accept as valid their princi- 
pal arguments in favor of the general theory of evo- 
lution. I shall lay great stress, for instance, upon 
the doctrine of heredity; and I shall particularly 
insist upon the entire validity of their analogical ar- 

1 In justice to the memory of Romanes I must not omit to men- 
tion that his most pronounced atheistic views were expressed in a 
work published anonymously, entitled " A Candid Examination of 
Theism," by u Physicus." In later years, however, he modified his 
views as therein expressed, and his notes were published post- 
humously under the title " Thoughts on Religion." Candor compels 
the remark, however, that, from a purely scientific point of view, his 
recantation is as valueless as his original arguments. 



PRELIM IN A RY. 221 

gument from the ontogeny of the germinal cell of 
man to the phylogeny of the primordial germ. As 
this argument is their stronghold, being absolutely 
invulnerable in itself, atheism could ask no greater 
concession than its acceptance by theism. It will 
thus be seen that I propose to accept, without quali- 
fication, all that is really fundamental in the theory 
of evolution, both of fact and of argument. I do so 
for two very good and sufficient reasons; namely, 
first, because they are right, and secondly, because 
they are exactly suited to my purpose. 

But when we come to the subsidiary hypotheses 
of those scientists, vastly different questions present 
themselves. For instance, the theory of natural 
selection cannot be received without some qualifi- 
cation, as I have already pointed out. I have also 
ventured to criticise other subsidiary theories of Mr. 
Darwin and his followers, and it is for this reason 
that I wish to remind the critical reader that the 
validity of the theistic argument which I am about 
to make will not rest upon the soundness of my 
position where I have taken issue with those eminent 
gentlemen on minor propositions. The point is that 
I expect to make my argument complete as a refu- 
tation of their atheistic conclusions without the ne- 
cessity of employing other facts or other arguments 
than their own. This may sound paradoxical ; but 
the intelligent reader will understand my meaning 
when I say that I shall simply take up their facts and 
their arguments at the point where they abruptly 
stop and beg the question at issue, and carry said 
facts and arguments to their legitimate and logical 
conclusion. 



222 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN 

I make these remarks at this time simply because 
I am aware of the propensity so often indulged by 
a certain class of agnostic philosophers to raise new 
or collateral issues when they fail to meet the real 
question. I wish therefore to direct the attention of 
such philosophers to the argument based upon their 
own data, and thus afford them the opportunity to 
wrestle with that, before they assume, a priori ', that 
I am wrong because I differ with Darwin and his 
worshippers on collateral issues. 

It is not because I fear, or expect to escape, or 
wish to avoid criticism for venturing to entertain 
views of my own in regard to those issues, that I 
have made these remarks. It is simply because I 
desire the reader to distinguish carefully between 
those arguments that are founded upon my dicta or 
hypotheses and those founded upon the facts and 
arguments furnished forth by my opponents. If 
that distinction is carefully borne in mind, it will be 
found that the theistic argument, per se, is complete 
without taking my own theories into account. 

But it must not be forgotten that it is one thing 
to prove theism, or the existence of an intelligent 
Great First Cause, as an independent proposition, and 
quite another to prove Christian theism, or the ex- 
istence of the God of Christian faith, as distinguished 
from all other theistic hypotheses. The first, as I 
shall proceed to show in subsequent chapters of this 
book, is easily proven by the aid of the facts of 
organic evolution, as set forth by the atheistic evo- 
lutionists themselves. But Christian theism is not 
so easily proven, inductively, without the aid of the 
new psychology. 



PRELIMINARY, 223 

Nor is the world at large very much interested in 
the first, for the great bulk of mankind believes in 
some form of theism. Even the agnostics are com- 
pelled to admit that the universe appears to be 
governed by some kind of intelligence ; but hold 
that it can bear no relation to insignificant man, and 
that, whatever it is otherwise, it is " utterly inscru- 
table " to man. 

Christianity, on the other hand, teaches that we 
should seek God, if haply we " might feel after him, 
and find him, though he is not far from each one of 
us : for in him we live, and move, and have our 
being; ... for we are also his offspring." 1 

It follows that we may know something of One 
who is so near to every one of us; that he is not 
" utterly inscrutable ; " that if we are his offspring, 
we may not only trace our pedigree back to him, 
but by an analysis of the mind nearest to him, and 
continuing that analysis to the mind of man, we may 
know something of the attributes of him from whom 
we are descended. 

The world is interested in this form of theism; for 
it is of the last importance that it should know 
whether or not the religion which bears a causal rela- 
tion to the greatest civilization on earth is founded 
upon a fundamental truth. And it looks to inductive 
science for a solution of the problem. It is this 
form of theism that it is the object of this book to 
examine. 

And this is why I have taken the pains to outline 
the fundamental principles of the new psychology, 
and to correlate them with the facts of organic evo- 

1 Acts xvii. 27 et seq. (St. Paul). 



224 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

lution. For if Christian theism is destined ever to be 
established by induction, it is obvious that it can be 
done only by a study of the facts and principles of 
these two sciences. 

And that is the reason why I have asked the 
reader to bear the distinction in mind. Theism is 
easily proven by the facts of organic evolution alone. 
Christian theism requires the aid of a true psychol- 
ogy. I have ventured to offer my own psycholog- 
ical hypotheses, for the reason that they seem to 
harmonize all the facts of organic and mental evolu- 
tion with the essential principles of Christian theism. 
This the old psychology could not do ; and the new 
physiological psychology does not touch the question. 
Under the old psychology any possible conception 
of the attributes of God based upon the known 
powers of the mind of man could not escape the 
charge of the crassest anthropomorphism. I shall 
attempt to show that under the new psychology, as 
outlined in this book, the highest possible concep- 
tion of the attributes and powers of the Deity may 
be gained by an analysis of the known powers of 
the subjective mind of man. 



CHAPTER II. 

THE GREAT ATHEISTIC PETITIO PRINCIPII. 

Logical Cobwebs to be cleared away. — The Real Question: Is 
there a Personal Deity ? — Anthropomorphism not Chargeable 
under New Psychology. — The Service rendered by Evolutionists. 

— Refuted Doctrine of Special Creations, and then said in 
their Hearts, " There is no God." — Mr. Darwin's Great Labor 
directed toward Atheism. — Entitled to Credit for proving Evolu- 
tion. — Natural Selection as the Origin of Species not sustained by 
Facts. — Artificial Selection produces New Morphological Species, 
not Physiological. — Examples. — Huxley takes this View. — 
Proof of Natural Selection lacking. — The Theory clung to by 
Atheism, because it disguises the Theory that Physical Organism 
antedates Intelligence. — This is the Stronghold of Atheism. — 
It is assumed without Proof, which is begging the Question. — 
Theory of Spontaneous Generation without One Fact to support 
it. — All Known Facts against it. — Haeckel assumes it confessedly 
without Facts. — Begs the Question. — Tyndall's Experiments 
failed to produce Organic Life from Inorganic Matter. — The Cru- 
cial Point at the Beginning of Organic Life. — Natural Selection 
the Theory of Chance. — Lamarck's Theory of Appetency. — Dar- 
win's Contempt for Lamarck because his Theory presupposed 
Intelligence as the Cause of Organism. — " It implies Necessary 
Progression." — "A Wretched Book." — Darwin's Private Reli- 
gious Views. — Lamarck's Theory complementary to Darwin's. — 
Huxley's Latest Views. — They indorse Lamarck's Theory. — 
Haeckel vs. Haeckel. — The Scientist vs. the Atheist. — The 
Moneron demonstrates Mind as Antecedent to Physical Organism. 

— The Monera are Structureless, and yet they are endowed 
with Mind and Life. — A Wonderful Intelligence. — His Theory 
itself a Case of" Spontaneous Generation." — The Moneron as a 
Symbol and an Example. — Symbolizes the Whole Process of 
Evolution. — An Example of Creative Power, of Control of 
Mind over Matter, of the Immanence of the Soul in the Body. 

— Its Independence of Organism, of a Law of Infinite Repro- 
duction. — Haeckel's Assumption begs the Question at Issue. — 

15 



226 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN 

It is in Defiance of all Facts and Recognized Principles. — Atheism 
based upon Pure Assumption. — The Theories of Darwin and 
his Followers are Atheistic. — Their Facts are Theistic. 

BEFORE proceeding to the main argument it is 
desirable to clear away a few of the logical 
cobwebs with which the agnostic philosophers have 
so ably obscured the question of theism as it is af- 
fected by the facts of evolution. In doing so, there 
will be no difficulty in showing that they have never 
treated the real question logically or even fairly. 
The real question is whether there exists an intelli- 
gent, personal Deity. The word " personal " is here 
employed for the want of a better term. If intelli- 
gence is granted, it presupposes a living, thinking, 
percipient entity, — a mental organism ; and an organ- 
ized intelligence must be in some sense a personality. 
Therefore an intelligent God must be a personal 
God. The word " personal/' as applied to the Deity, 
has been a bete noir to atheistic philosophers for 
many centuries, simply because they have chosen 
to assume that it implies anthropomorphism. This 
assumption was not wholly without warrant under 
the old psychology; but before this book is finished 
it will be shown that personality does not necessarily 
imply anthropomorphism; and that the Christian 
doctrine that man was made in the image of God 
may be scientifically exact without being inconsistent 
with the highest possible conception of a Deity. In 
short, it will be shown that the crude and anthro- 
pomorphic conceptions of God which were based 
upon the assumption of the divine pedigree of man 
were only possible under the old psychology. This, 
however, must be reserved for its proper place in 



THE ATHEISTIC PETITIO PRINCIPIL 227 

future chapters. We will now proceed to examine 
the logical attitude of those agnostic philosophers 
who imagine that they have eliminated God from the 
universe, or, to put it in the language of Romanes, 
that there exists no logical " necessity for a God." * 

At the outset due credit must be awarded to the 
authors of the evolutionary hypothesis for the one 
great service they have rendered to humanity and to 
the cause of science and religion. They have logically 
and scientifically demonstrated that evolution is God's 
method of creation. That is to say, they have effec- 
tually disproved the old doctrine of special creations. 
In doing so, they have, unintentionally it would seem, 
done more for the cause of true religion, more to 
demonstrate the existence of, and the logical neces- 
sity for, an intelligent, personal Deity, than the old 
doctrine of special, miraculous creations has ever 
done. 

But it was at this point that they made their first 
great logical mistake. They imagined that, since 
they had done away with the doctrine of special 
creations, they had also done away with the Creator, 
or at least had obviated all logical necessity for a 
Creator. Upon what principle of logic such a con- 
clusion was thought to be legitimate, it would now 
be useless to inquire. It is sufficient to know that 
Mr. Darwin and his followers arrived at that conclu- 
sion, although they attempted in various ways to 
disguise it. At any rate, his efforts were in reality 
directed more specifically and pronouncedly toward 
the atheistic argument than they were towards the 
proofs of any other one of his theses or hypotheses. 

1 A Candid Examination of Theism. 



228 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

The theory of evolution by itself could have been 
demonstrated to be true with half the labor that Mr. 
Darwin bestowed upon " The Origin of Species." 
The facts of paleontology alone would have been 
sufficient. In point of fact, as Mr. Huxley has 
pointed out, " primary and direct evidence in favor 
of evolution can be furnished only by paleontology." l 
Moreover, one half the facts of biology cited by Mr. 
Darwin would have been sufficient to make a prima 
facie case in favor of the evolutionary hypothesis ; 
and it could have been done without committing its 
author to a theory of causation that he has been 
utterly unable to sustain. Besides, the moment the 
doctrine of evolution is established, its opposite, 
the doctrine of special creations, falls of its own 
weight. 

We may therefore concede, for the sake of the 
argument, that Mr. Darwin is entitled to the credit 
of making a prima facie case in favor of the evolu- 
tionary hypothesis; and that, in so doing, he has 
annihilated the doctrine of special creations. I say 
we may concede that much ; for his facts, properly 
classified and examined, without reference to his theory 
of causation^ are sufficient. But when we examine 
them with reference to his theory, that is, with refer- 
ence to his doctrine of natural selection as the cause 
of the origin of species, a logical doubt is thrown 
upon his whole doctrine. And I may here remark 
that if the theory of evolution had depended for its 
validity upon the labors of Mr. Darwin alone, it could 
never have obtained general acceptance. It is to the 
labors of his contemporaries and his successors that 

1 Darwiniana, p. 239. 



THE ATHEISTIC PETITIO PRINCIPII 229 

the credit is due of placing the evolutionary hypothe- 
sis beyond the region of rational doubt. 

In saying this, I am not seeking to dim the lustre 
of the fame of Mr. Darwin. Far from it. He is 
entitled to all the credit due to the intelligent, in- 
dustrious, and conscientious gatherer of the facts of 
nature. He was, as such, one of the most illustrious 
" hewers of wood and drawers of water" for science 
that the world has ever seen. It is upon this that 
the true fame of Mr. Darwin must rest in all the ages. 
It was this that first attracted the attention of scien- 
tists in all parts of the civilized world. The true 
scientist is an ardent lover of facts, as he should be ; 
but it must be said that he sometimes " loves, not 
wisely, but too well ; " for it unfortunately happens 
that even facts are sometimes prostituted to illegiti- 
mate uses. That is to say, when a mass of new and 
well-authenticated facts is presented to the scientist, 
especially if it is accompanied by an attractive theory 
of causation, he is not always careful to discriminate 
between the facts that sustain the theory and those 
which do not. It will not be difficult to show that 
Mr. Darwin's followers have not always been careful 
to keep that distinction clearly in view. 

The facts in the case are briefly these : Mr. Darwin, 
in the course of extensive travel and long years of 
close observation, had collected a vast store of facts 
which bore upon the subject of organic evolution; 
and he wisely determined to embody the result of 
his labors in a book setting forth his reasons for 
believing that " the innumerable species, genera, and 
families of organic beings with which the world is 
peopled have all descended, each within its own 



230 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

class or group, from common parents, and have all 
been modified in the course of descent." 1 No one 
can deny that his fundamental doctrine of evolution- 
ary development, as it is thus stated in his own lan- 
guage, has been amply verified by his facts. But 
when he comes to tell us how this modification 
took place, he signally fails. In other words, when 
he tells us that natural selection is the origin of 
species, he signally fails to prove the correctness of 
the hypothesis. That is to say, he has not given us 
one instance where a new species has been produced 
by either natural or artificial selection. He has 
shown what everybody has observed for himself, 
namely, that artificial selection — that is, breeding — 
has the power to change vastly the structure, or 
morphology, of animals, and thus produce what is 
loosely termed " new species." Thus, the great 
variety of pigeons shows what intelligent artificial 
selection can do in the way of originating " morpho- 
logical species ; " although it is well settled that all 
the varieties are really descended from the rock 
pigeon. Again, there is a wide difference between 
the " razor-back " hog of the Southern States and 
the " preposterous pig " of commerce as exhibited 
in Northern county fairs and stockyards ; and still 
more between the latter and the wild boar. But 
they are all of the same physiological species. The 
true test of species is in the phenomena of hybridiza- 
tion. Thus, if the offspring of two supposed species 
are infertile with each other, or with the original 
species on either side, the evidence is complete that 
the two parents belong to different physiological 

1 Origin of Species, ist ed., p. 457. 



THE ATHEISTIC PETITIO PRINCIPII. 23 1 

species. The horse and the ass, for instance, when 
bred together produce the hybrid mule; and the 
latter is well known to be infertile with other mules 
or with either of the parent species. On the other 
hand, dogs, howsoever wide may be their morpholo- 
gical differences, as between the greyhound and the 
dachshund, for instance, are perfectly fertile with 
each other, and their offspring are fertile with each 
other and all other varieties or races of dogs. The 
same may be said of hogs, pigeons, and many 
other species with widely varying morphological 
characteristics. 

To show that I am not alone in my opinion as to 
Mr. Darwin's failure to establish his doctrine that 
natural selection is the originator of all species, I 
quote the words of his best friend and most ardent 
admirer and sympathizer, the late Thomas H. Huxley : 

" After much consideration, and with assuredly no bias 
against Mr. Darwin's views, it is our clear conviction that, 
as the evidence stands, it is not absolutely proven that a 
group of animals, having all the characters exhibited by 
species in nature, has ever been originated by selection, 
whether artificial or natural. Groups having the morpho- 
logical character of species — distinct and permanent races, 
in fact — have been so produced over and over again ; but 
there is no positive evidence, at present, that any group of 
animals has, by variation and selective breeding, given rise 
to another group which was, even in the least degree, in- 
fertile with the first. Mr. Darwin is perfectly aware of 
this weak point, and brings forward a multitude of ingeni- 
ous and important arguments to diminish the force of the 
objection. We admit the value of these arguments to 
their fullest extent; nay, we will go so far as to express 



232 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

our belief that experiments conducted by a skilful physiolo- 
gist would very probably obtain the desired production of 
mutually more or less infertile breeds from a common 
stock in a comparatively few years ; but still, as the case 
stands at present, this ' little rift within the lute ' is not to 
be disguised or overlooked." * 

Now, it so happens that this " little rift within the 
lute " is large enough to destroy utterly the concord 
of sweet sounds which is popularly supposed to 
emanate from Mr. Darwin's instrument. In other 
words, the above quotation is the candid though 
evidently reluctant admission of an honest man that 
Mr. Darwin, with all his vast array of facts, has 
utterly failed to find one that proves his hypothesis, 
" even in the least degree." That is to say, the 
theory that all those physiological changes and dif- 
ferentiations that constitute species in animals, the 
theory that all structural changes in animal life which 
make up the sum-total of evolutionary development, 
the theory that was supposed to eliminate God from 
the universe and relegate all the works of nature 
to the domain of chance, is found to be without 
one solitary fact to sustain it. 

It does not in the least degree militate against 
this one fact for Mr. Huxley to say that Mr. Darwin's 
arguments are " ingenious and important" when he 
tries to diminish its force. Nor does it strengthen 
the weak point when Mr. Huxley admits the 
value of the ingenious arguments aforesaid. Nor 
does it aid Mr. Darwin to supply the demand for 
facts when Mr. Huxley goes so far as to guess that 
some future " skilful physiologist " might be able to 

1 Darwiniana, pp. 74, 75. 



THE ATHEISTIC PETITIO PRINCIPIL 233 

supply the required fact for Mr. Darwin if he would 
only try hard enough. The fact remains that Mr. 
Darwin's theory that natural selection accounts for 
the origin of species has not one fact to sustain it. 

Now, I hasten to repeat what I said in Part I. of 
this book ; namely, that I have no quarrel with the 
theory of natural selection, or survival of the 
fittest. But it is a subsidiary factor in the grand 
scheme of evolutionary development, and not the 
scheme itself. Within its " sphere of influence " it is 
supreme, and no theory of evolution would be com- 
plete without it. But to say that it is the cause of 
organic evolution could only be exactly paralleled in 
absurdity by supposing the revolution of the earth on 
its own axis to be the cause of all planetary motion. 
Indeed, we might exactly parallel Mr. Darwin's case 
by supposing him to be a student of astronomy 
instead of a naturalist. We might suppose that he 
was an indefatigable gatherer of facts, and that after 
years of laborious research he had accumulated 
enough ammunition to explode the theory that the 
earth is flat and that the sun revolves around it once 
in twenty-four hours. We might then confidently 
expect him to write a book clearly demonstrating 
that the earth is round instead of flat, and that it 
revolves on its own axis, from west to east, once in 
twenty-four hours, etc. It is easy to imagine that 
Mr. Darwin would at once be hailed as a great scien- 
tist, and justly so, because his great array of facts 
would be demonstrative of his thesis. But suppose 
he labelled his book " The Origin of Planetary Mo- 
tion/' and claimed in it that the revolution of the earth 
caused all the other planets to revolve and kept them 



234 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

in their orbits. Would scientists accept that hypoth- 
esis in the absence of a single fact to prove it, 
simply because he had proven some other proposi- 
tion by a great array of facts? Well, that depends. 
They most likely would if it was understood that the 
unproven proposition would, if true, eliminate God 
from the universe. In that case Mr. Huxley might 
be depended upon to rise to the occasion and remark 
that "it is true that Mr. Darwin has not cited a single 
fact going to show that the revolution of the earth is 
the cause of all planetary motion ; but he has proven 
over and over again that the earth revolves; he 
argues ingeniously, and I am prepared to believe 
that somebody else will some day work up a fact that 
will help Mr. Darwin out. In the mean time it is the 
best hypothesis we have for proving that there is no 
logical necessity for a Deity, and we had better stick 
to it and wait for something to turn up." 

I submit that the logic of the two cases runs on 
parallel lines. It may be objected that I have sup- 
posed an absurdity as my unproven proposition. My 
reply is that it is no more absurd to suppose that the 
revolution of the earth is the cause of all astronomical 
phenomena than it is to suppose that a series of acci- 
dents is the cause of all evolutionary development of 
animal life on this planet. 

This, then, is the logic of the situation as it is 
shown upon the surface. Viewed from that stand- 
point alone, it is difficult to imagine why such 
logicians as Huxley should cling with such tenacity 
to a hypothesis that admittedly has not one fact to 
sustain it. But when the surface is penetrated, the 
mystery is easily solved; for it is then found that 



THE ATHEISTIC PETITIO PRINCIPII. 235 

the theory that natural selection accounts for the origin 
of species thinly disguises a fundamental proposition 
that is vital to atheism. That proposition is that 
physical organism is antecedent to intelligence. The 
converse of that proposition is that intelligence is 
antecedent to physical organism. The latter is the 
theistic proposition ; the former is the stronghold of 
atheism. 

A few words will make my meaning clear. I am 
speaking, of course, of atheism versus theism solely 
with reference to the issue as affected, pro and con, 
by the facts of organic evolution. Viewed from that 
standpoint, the fundamental issue resolves itself into 
this question : — 

Does mind antedate physical organism? 

This is the fundamental issue in a nutshell. And 
it will readily be seen that to establish the affirmative 
is to invest every step in the progressive develop- 
ment of organic life with a profound theistic signifi- 
cance ; for it leads us at once back to the very 
beginning of organic life on this planet. It leads, in 
other words, to the very heart of the great question ; 
for, if the affirmative is true, mind antedated the 
lowest unicellular organism and endowed it with life 
and intelligence. If that is true, it necessarily in- 
volves the theistic interpretation of the origin of 
mind and life. If the negative is true, physical 
organism necessarily originated mind and endowed it 
with its wonderful powers. How? By an accidental 
juxtaposition and subsequent union of certain chemi- 
cal substances protoplasm was formed, and pro- 
toplasm originated mind. This, in plain terms, is 
the atheistic hypothesis of the origin of life and 



2$6 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

mind. " Science " seeks to soften the crude realism 
of the naked truth, as thus expressed, by the use of 
words of learned length and thundering sound ; and 
hence the terms " abiogenesis " 2 (Huxley) and 
" archebiosis " 2 (Bastian), both of which mean 
spontaneous generation, and have been coined for 
the purpose of giving a scientific air to the crude 
doctrine that the beginning of life on this planet was 
due to " accident " or " chance." 

At this point I pause to remark upon the logical 
attitude involved in this particular assumption, — 
that life and mind originated by spontaneous genera- 
tion. That assumption is what is known in logic as 
petitio principii ; and it is one of the most flagrant 
examples on record of that most abominable of all 
logical offences of which a logician can be guilty. 
Petitio principii, in plain English, is " begging the 
question." To beg the question is to take for 
granted the matter in dispute, — to assume without 
warrant something that involves the point under 
discussion. 

Now, the matter in dispute between the atheistic 
evolutionist and the theistic evolutionist is just this 
question of spontaneous generation. Is that the way 
life originated on this planet? Or was there an antece- 
dent mind from which the primordial germ inherited 
its intuitive, or instinctive, knowledge of the laws of 
its being? That is the vital question ; and upon the 
decision of that question largely depends the strength 
of the argument for or against theism so far as it is 
affected by the facts of organic evolution. 

1 Discourses, Biological and Geological, Appletons* Am. ed., p. 229. y 

2 The Beginnings of Life. 



THE ATHEISTIC PETITIO PRINCIPIL 237 

Now, the argument for spontaneous generation is 
simply nil. It is pure, gratuitous assumption, with- 
out a single fact to sustain it that is not a stronger 
argument against it than for it. Thus, Haeckel, 1 in 
speaking of that species of moneron discovered by 
Huxley in 1868, called the Bathybius, has this to 
say: — 

" The oldest monera originated in the sea by spontaneous 
generation. This assumption is required by the demand of 
the human understanding for causality. " 

The italics are mine. They were unnecessary for 
the purpose of merely drawing the attention of the 
reader to the logical fact that spontaneous generation 
is pure assumption, without one solitary fact to sus- 
tain it; for that may be taken pro confesso. Neither 
is it necessary to emphasize the fact that such an 
" assumption " is " required " by the exigencies of 
the atheistic argument; for that is self-evident, 
since there is, confessedly, nothing but assumption 
suited to the atheistic purpose. But I wish to draw 
particular attention to the monumental character of 
the assumption that the logical dilemma of atheism 
and " the demand of the human understanding for 
causality " are synonymous expressions or logical 
equivalents. I submit that the demand of the 
human understanding for causality is not adequately 
supplied by assumptions without evidence ; and I 
protest against measuring human understanding by 
atheistic standards. 

Now, I am not exaggerating in the least when I 
say that the strongest evidence of the correctness of 

1 The Evolution of Man, p. 31. 



238 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

the theory of spontaneous generation is given by 
Professor Haeckel in the following sentence : "The 
doctrine of spontaneous generation cannot be ex- 
perimentally refuted/' x Neither can the doctrine 
that the moon is made of green cheese be experi- 
mentally refuted. Yet no one but an atheist, in 
desperate pursuit of a suitable hypothesis, would 
assume that the inability to prove the negative of 
a proposition constitutes valid evidence that the 
proposition is true. 

Logically, the inability to prove a negative possesses 
no evidential value whatever in the absence of any 
affirmative proof of a given proposition. The absence 
of negative proof, however, possesses great signifi- 
cance when facts exist which are confirmatory of the 
hypothesis. In this case there are confessedly no 
facts to prove the affirmative. These are the words 
of the learned professor aforesaid : — 

" Neither can the theory of spontaneous generation be 
experimentally proved unless great difficulties are overcome" 2 
(The italics are mine.) 

Again we are reminded of Professor Huxley. Like 
him, Professor Haeckel finds no existing proof of his 
hypothesis, but thinks that maybe, sometime, some- 
body will find a fact, or manufacture one, that will 
help him out, provided he is able to overcome great 
difficulties. In the mean time he speaks very con- 
temptuously of those who have tried to produce 
spontaneous generation " by means of the crudest 
experiments." 8 Doubtless the learned professor 
refers to Huxley's great discourse on " Biogenesis 

i Op. cit. p. 32. 2 Op. cit. p. 32. 3 Op. cit. p. 32. 



THE ATHEISTIC PETITIO PRINCIPIL 239 

and Abiogenesis," x in which he exposes the fallacies 
of all previous writers who have adopted the hypoth- 
esis of spontaneous generation. It may be, however, 
that the " crude experiments " he refers to are Pro- 
fessor Tyndall's 2 world-renowned series of experi- 
ments which were conducted with a view to the 
settlement of the vexed question. No one will accuse 
the learned author of "The Prayer Gauge " of enter- 
taining any violent prejudices, on religious grounds, 
against the theory of spontaneous generation. Nev- 
ertheless he spent years in exposing the fallacies 
of those who imagined that their crude experiments 
had forever settled the question affirmatively. The 
history of experimental scientific investigation does 
not record a series of more carefully conducted exper- 
iments than that by which Professor Tyndall demon- 
strated, as far as a negative can be proven, that life 
cannot be generated from inorganic compounds, 
spontaneously or otherwise. 

I cannot close the discussion of this branch of 
the subject without expressing my appreciation of 
Professor Haeckers candor in frankly admitting the 
weakness of his argument at the crucial point. He 
admits that the "assumption " of spontaneous gener- 
ation is " required" by the necessities of his argu- 
ment. I agree with him. There is nothing left for 
atheism but such an assumption at the point where 
organic life commenced on this earth; for that is 
the crucial point in the argument for and against 
theism so far as the question is affected by the facts 

1 Op. cit. p. 229. 

2 See Tyndall's " Fragments of Science," vol. ii., art. " Sponta- 
neous Generation." 



240 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

of organic evolution. Life and mind, with all their 
implications and potentialities, were spontaneously 
generated from a fortuitous admixture of " inorganic 
carbon compounds/' 1 or they were inherited from 
an antecedent life and mind. One or the other of 
these propositions is true; for there is no middle 
ground. Professor Haeckel finds that the exigen- 
cies of the logical situation require him to assume 
that the first is true. But he does so, not only 
without one fact to sustain the assumption, but with 
all the facts of experimental science arrayed against 
it. As to the second of these alternative proposi- 
tions, I shall attempt to show in future chapters that 
all the salient facts of evolution conspire to demon- 
strate its truth. In the mean time, as stated in the 
commencement of this chapter, my object is to show 
the logical attitude of atheism ; and it is thought 
that it may now be safely assumed that Professor 
Haeckel has been convicted of the " direct " petitio 
principii. 

Attention will now be directed once more to Mr. 
Darwin and his immediate coadjutors with the view 
of showing that they are guilty of the " indirect " 
petitio. That is to say, Mr. Darwin attempts by 
indirection to reach the same point that Professor 
Haeckel assumed directly as his major premise, 
namely, spontaneous generation. 

It has already been shown that the logical impli- 
cation of the doctrine that natural selection origi- 
nates species is that physical organism antedates 
intelligence, that is, the intelligence that makes the 
selection. The very term "selection " indicates 

1 Op. cit. p. 31. 



THE ATHEISTIC PETITIO PRINCIPII. 241 

that unmistakably. Selection presupposes some- 
thing to select, and an intelligence capable of mak- 
ing a discriminating choice. This applies, however, 
to artificial selection more particularly, for in that 
the intelligence of man makes the choice. But in 
natural selection, survival of the fittest is sup- 
posed to take the place of intelligence. But in that 
case there is also presupposed an antecedent organ- 
ism capable of surviving; that is, endowed with 
superior strength or sagacity, or something that 
enables it to cope successfully with its environment 
and survive less favored organisms. All this is 
reasonable and logical as far as it goes, and it 
accounts for a great many things. But as I have 
already shown, by the aid of Mr. Huxley and others, 
it does not account for the origin of species. It 
does not account for the antecedent organism that is 
superior in strength, sagacity, etc., and conse- 
quently capable of surviving rival organisms. And 
that is the crucial question. Mr. Darwin answers 
this in effect by the one word "accident," — other- 
wise chance. Disguise it as you will, the Dar- 
winian doctrine is the doctrine of chance; for he 
offers no other explanation, and by his contemptu- 
ous rejection of Lamarck's theory of appetency, he 
rejects the only possible alternative hypothesis. In 
other words, as I have already pointed out, he rejects 
the only possible theory that implies a constant, 
inherent force, resident in each organism, that 
makes for progressive development. 

The question is, Why do Darwin and his atheistic 
followers reject that doctrine? Simply because it 
presupposes that mind antedates physical organism, 

16 



2Afl THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN 

and that it is, in fact, the primary cause of organic 
changes, and, consequently, of all evolutionary 
development. Darwin was shrewd enough to foresee 
that Lamarck's theory, carried to its legitimate con- 
clusion, that is, carried back to the primordial 
germ, would imply a mind antecedent to the first 
unicellular organism; a mind capable of endowing 
protoplasm with life and intelligence; a mind 
capable of implanting in the primordial germ the 
potentialities of manhood; a mind capable of endow- 
ing the lowest unicellular organism with such 
faculties, powers, and limitations that progressive 
development was a necessity of its being; in short, a 
mind capable of originating the principle of organic 
evolution, and establishing it as a law inherent in 
the very nature of every sentient creature. In other 
words, he saw that Lamarck's theory, carried to its 
legitimate conclusion, inevitably led to a logical 
demonstration of the theistic hypothesis. 

Do I overestimate Mr. Darwin's logical acumen 
in giving him credit for foreseeing the ultimate out- 
come of the theory of appetency ? Or, on the other 
hand, do I do Mr. Darwin injustice in supposing 
him to be moved by a desire to avoid the logical 
conclusion that appetency leads to theism? The 
most attentive reader of Mr. Darwin's works proper 
will probably fail to find any evidence whatever that 
he was so moved, except in the general trend of the 
Darwinian hypothesis. Mr. Darwin was too shrewd 
a controversialist thus to expose the weakness of his 
cause or the real animus of his works. Nevertheless, 
there exists indubitable evidence that my estimate 
of Mr. Darwin is neither exaggerated nor at fault. 



THE ATHEISTIC PETITIO PRINCIPII 243 

It has often been remarked that more can be 
learned of the real man by the perusal of one of his 
private letters to an intimate friend, than can be 
divined by reading a dozen volumes of his published 
works. This is eminently true of Mr. Darwin. 
Accordingly we find in one of his letters to his 
bosom friend, Sir Charles Lyell, his deliberate 
opinion of Lamarck's theory, and his real reason for 
the contempt with which he regarded it. In this 
letter he was taking Sir Charles to task for refer- 
ring to Mr. Darwin's views as a modification of 
Lamarck's. He says : — 

" If this is your deliberate opinion, there is nothing to be 
said, but it does not seem so to me. Plato, Buffon, my 
grandfather before Lamarck, and others propounded the 
obvious views that if species were not created separately 
they must have descended from other species, and I can 
see nothing else in common between the i Origin ' and 
Lamarck. I believe this way of putting the case is very 
injurious to its acceptance, as it implies necessary progres- 
sion, and closely connects Wallace's and my views with 
what I consider, after two deliberate readings, as a wretched 
book, and one from which (I well remember my surprise) 
I gained nothing. 1 

In a later letter to Sir Charles he speaks of 
Lamarck's book as follows : — 

" As for Lamarck, as you have such a man as Grove with 
you, you are triumphant ; not that I can alter my opinion 
that to me it was an absolutely useless book" 2 (The italics 
are mine.) 

1 Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, vol. ii.pp. 198, 199. 

2 Ibid. p. 201. 



244 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

" A wretched book " — " an absolutely useless 
book" — is the verdict of Mr. Darwin in re La- 
marck's work on organic evolution. Why? Simply 
because the latter's theory " implies necessary pro- 
gression, " is Mr. Darwin's answer. 

If Mr. Darwin had written a volume on the subject 
of his religious views as expressed or implied in his 
doctrine of the origin of species, he could not have 
more plainly and definitely said : " I object to La- 
marck's theory of evolution because it implies a con- 
stant force, inherent in every sentient creature and 
arising from the wants and necessities of its exist- 
ence, that compels progressive development. I ob- 
ject to it because it implies that mind is antecedent 
to organism and is endowed with a creative energy 
equal to the production of organic structural changes. 
I object to it because, carried to its legitimate con- 
clusion, it implies that mind antedated the lowest 
animal organism and impelled its structural devel- 
opment. I object to it because it implies that evo- 
lutionary development proceeds in obedience to a 
law, and not to a series of accidents, and that it is, 
therefore, a ' necessary progression.' I object to it 
because ' necessary progression ' implies a definite 
end in view — a goal to be reached — which, in turn, 
implies design." 

Does any one doubt that all this is implied in his 
remarks contrasting Lamarck's doctrine with the 
theory of natural selection? In other words, does 
any one imagine that Darwin did not regard design 
as implied in " necessary progression," as the very 
antithesis of his doctrine of natural selection? If so, 
we will again invite attention to some of Mr. Darwin's 



THE ATHEISTIC PETITIO PRINCIPII 245 

private sentiments, — to an extract from his autobiog- 
raphy, written, not for publication, but for the eyes 
of his immediate family. 

Speaking of his early religious beliefs as contrasted 
with those he afterwards entertained, he says : — 

" Although I did not think much about the existence of a 
personal God until a considerably later period of my life, I 
will here give the vague conclusions to which I have been 
driven. The old argument from design in nature, as given 
by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, 
now that the law of natural selection has been discovered." 1 
(The italics are mine.) 

I submit that words could not more plainly express 
his belief that the doctrine of natural selection has 
forever refuted the teleological argument, — the doc- 
trine of design, as evidenced in the works of nature. 
This, in connection with his contemptuous rejection 
of Lamarck's theory on the ground that it " implies 
necessary progression," furnishes indubitable proof 
that he regarded his own theory as the very antith- 
esis of that of Lamarck. That is to say, Lamarck's 
theory is that the mind within the organism is capable 
of changing organic structure in response to neces- 
sity; hence a mind antecedent to organism from the 
beginning ; hence a law, and hence " necessary pro- 
gression" in accordance with an immutable law of 
progressive development implanted in the primordial 
germ. 

These are the necessary logical implications of 
Lamarck's theory, 2 and Mr. Darwin was not slow to 

1 Life and Letters, vol. i. p. 278. 

2 It must here be noted that such was not Lamarck's opinion ; for 
he too was an atheist, and fondly imagined that his theory elimi- 



246 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN 

recognize the fact. Hence his indignant protest 
against classing any theory that implies necessary 
progression with his doctrine of chance. In his es- 
timation, and surely no one has any right to gainsay 
it, the two hypotheses are antithetical, antipodal. 
On no other grounds than those I have stated could 
they be so considered. One leads inevitably to 
theism; the other is crass atheism. 1 

If Mr. Darwin had not been moved to this antago- 
nism on the grounds thus indicated, he surely could 
not have failed to see what Huxley evidently saw so 
clearly, that the two theories are complementary of 
each other; that, in fact, each is incomplete with- 
out the other. It is not even pretended that nat- 
ural selection explains the cause of those variations 
of physical structure from which the selection is 
made. Beyond the theory of chance all is in ob- 
scurity so far as Mr. Darwin informs us. " Species," 
he says, " originated by means of natural selection, 
or through the preservation of the favored races 
in the struggle for life. ,, But he does not tell us 
how the " favored races" came to be favored with 
the structural advantages which enable them to com- 
pete successfully in the struggle for life. " Chance " 
is the only explanation offered by Mr. Darwin, and, 
as we have already seen, he emphasizes it by his 

nated God from the universe. Hence it was that, with that singular 
want of logical acumen that seems to be congenite with certain types 
of continental philosophers and scientists, he referred the origin of 
life and mind to spontaneous generation. 

1 Disguise the latter term as you will, or soften it into " agnosti- 
cism," it still remains that an agnostic is simply an atheist with- 
out the courage of his convictions ; and Mr. Darwin's so-called reli- 
gious views, as shown in his letters and autobiography, reveal the 
fact that he was a living illustration of this definition. 



THE ATHEISTIC PETITIO PRINCIPII 247 

irascible hostility to any theory which implies a law 
governing the subject-matter. If, therefore, chance 
is not his theory of causation, as Mr. Huxley feebly 
protests, then Mr. Darwin has no theory. In any 
event, there is a hiatus in his hypothesis that cannot 
be bridged by an accident or a series of accidents. 

Now, there has never been a theory promulgated 
that is capable of filling this hiatus by means of 
a law of progressive development except Lamarck's. 
I have stated above that Mr. Huxley saw this 
clearly. I do not find this admission in the text 
of his published works ; but I do find it in his pref- 
ace to Appletons' American edition of " Darwin- 
iana." This preface is dated April 7, 1893, eleven 
years after Mr. Darwin's death, and but a few years 
before his own demise. It may therefore be re- 
garded as his final protest against the insufficiency 
of his friend's theory, and a parting suggestion to 
science as to the only hypothesis that can fill the 
hiatus. He says : — 

"As I have said in the seventh essay, the fact of evolution 
is sufficiently evidenced by paleontology ; and I remain 
of the opinion expressed in the second, that until selective 
breeding is definitely proved to give rise to varieties in- 
fertile with one another, the logical foundation of natural 
selection is incomplete. We still remain very much in the 
dark about the causes of variation : the apparent inherit- 
ance of acquired characters in some cases ; and the struggle 
for existence within the organism,, which probably lies at the 
bottom of both these phenomena." (The italics are mine.) 

I submit that, without specifically naming Lamarck 
or his theory, Mr. Huxley could not have more 



248 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

pointedly declared his final opinion to be that 
Darwin's theory of evolutionary development is in- 
complete, and that Lamarck's is the only possible 
complementary hypothesis. I therefore repeat, with 
increased emphasis, that neither Lamarck's theory 
nor Darwin's is complete without the other ; but that 
together they constitute a theory of evolutionary 
development that is complete, coherent, and scien- 
tific. It is complete because it leaves no hiatus to 
be bridged by accident or chance. It is coherent 
because the two factors are not inconsistent with 
each other. It is scientific because it accounts for 
all the facts and reveals a law of evolution under 
which progression is necessary. 

This alone would commend it to such a mind as 
Huxley's, even though it does presuppose mind to 
be antecedent to physical organism, and, indeed, the 
primary cause of it. Unlike Mr. Darwin, Mr. Huxley 
did not shrink from the acknowledgment of facts, 
howsoever strongly they might militate against his 
" agnostic " preconceptions. One of his ablest essays 
was calculated to explode the fallacy of spontaneous 
generation, 1 indispensable as it is to the atheistic 
argument, as acknowledged by Haeckel. Nor could 
he have failed to realize the trend of the facts of 
nature toward theism when he finally declared his 
conviction that " the struggle for existence within 
the organism " lies at the bottom of all causes of 
variation in species and the inheritance of acquired 
characters. It was, in effect, a distinct declaration 
that mind is not only antecedent to physical organism, 
but that it is the efficient cause, the initial force, which 

1 Discourses : Biological and Geological Essays, p. 229. 



THE ATHEISTIC PETITIO PRINCIPII. 249 

lies at the bottom of all the phenomena of progressive 
development of animal life on this planet. Moreover, 
he could not have failed to see that the inevitable 
logical, scientific induction is that mind is antecedent 
to, and the efficient cause of, the primordial unicellu- 
lar organism. 

And this is the conclusion that Darwin so strenu- 
ously sought to avoid. This is the conclusion that 
Haeckel evaded by begging the question, — by the 
11 direct " petitio. 

And this brings us back to another singular 
break in Professor Haeckel's logic, and one which 
has a very important bearing upon this question. 
In his anxiety to prove spontaneous generation, he 
went back beyond the true cell, the amoeba, with a 
nucleus ; that is, a physical organism with organs, in 
search of animal life " standing on the very boundary 
between organic and inorganic natural bodies." x 

Surely, if spontaneous generation accounts for the 
origin of animal life, the evidence must be found on 
this boundary line between the two realms. Has 
Professor Haeckel found that evidence? Here is 
what he has to say in concluding his argument, so 
called, for spontaneous generation : — 

" In conclusion, I repeat, with emphasis, that it is only 
in the case of monera — of structureless organisms without 
organs — that we can assume the hypothesis of spontaneous 
generation. Every differentiated organism, every organism 
composed of organs, can only have originated from an un- 
differentiated lower organism by differentiation of its parts, 
and consequently by phylogeny. Hence, even in the pro- 
duction of the simplest cell we must not assume the process 

1 The Evolution of Man, vol. ii. p. 50. 



250 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN 

of spontaneous generation. For even the simplest cell con- 
sists of at least two distinct constituent parts : the inner 
and firmer kernel (nucleus), and the outer and softer cell- 
substance or protoplasm. These two distinct parts can 
only have come into being by differentiation of the homo- 
geneous plasson of a moneron and of a cytode. It is for this 
very reason that the natural history of monera is of the 
highest interest ; for it alone can remove the principal 
difficulties which beset the question of spontaneous genera- 
tion. The extant monera do afford us organless and 
structureless organisms, such as must have originated by 
spontaneous generation at the first beginning of organic 
life upon the earth." x (The italics are mine.) 

Now let us inquire what evidence Professor Haeckel 
has really found to substantiate his hypothesis. In 
the first place, it will be noted that he admits that the 
moneron "alone " can help him out, and he is doubt- 
less right; for if that fails, his doctrine of sponta- 
neous generation, with all of its atheistic implications, 
comes to naught. 

The thing that he has really found, upon which 
so much depends, is an " organless and structureless 
organism." This might appear like a contradiction 
in terms, since physical organism presupposes differ- 
entiated organs or parts performing special functions 
that are mutually dependent and essential; but he 
calls it an organism, either for the want of a better 
term, or because it is endowed with a mind organism, 
and is therefore capable of performing functions. Be 
that as it may, let us fasten the " structureless " part 
of the moneron beyond peradventure. 

1 Op. cit. p. 33. 



THE ATHEISTIC PETITIO PRINCIPIL 25 1 

"It might be argued," says the learned professor, "that 
the monera are not really structureless, but that their organ- 
ism is so minute that, in consequence of the inadequate 
power of our magnifying glasses, it is invisible. This objec- 
tion is, however, invalid, for by the experiment of feeding, 
we can at any moment prove the entrance of foreign, 
formed, small bodies into the different parts of the body of 
the moneron, and that these are irregularly driven about in 
all directions. At the same time we see that the change- 
able network of threads, formed by the branching of the 
protoplasmic threads and the coalescence of the confluent 
branches, alter their configuration every moment ; just as 
has long been known to occur in the thread-nets of the pro- 
toplasm in the interior of the plant-cells. The monera 
are, therefore, really homogeneous and structureless ; each 
part of the body is every other part. Each part can absorb 
and digest nourishment ; each part is excitable and sensi- 
tive ; each part can move itself independently ; and, lastly, 
each part is capable of reproduction and regeneration.' ' * 

We may now concede that Professor Haeckel has 
demonstrated two very important facts: namely, (1) 
the existence of an " organless and structureless or- 
ganism ; " and (2) that this organism is endowed with 
a mind 2 capable of exhibiting the active phenomena 
of life, namely, nutrition, sensation, spontaneous move- 
ment, reproduction, and regeneration. It is difficult, 
however, to imagine upon what grounds he imagines 
that he has helped his case. He has, in point of fact, 
demonstrated the exact opposite to that which he 
set out to prove. 

1 The Evolution of Man, vol. ii. pp. 47, 48. 

2 See Binet on " The Psychic Life of Micro-Organisms," and Ro- 
manes on " Mental Evolution in Animals," quoted in part i. of this 
book, to prove mind in micro-organisms. 



252 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

He has demonstrated that mind is antecedent to physi- 
cal, structural organism. 

He has shown us a mind that is capable of seiz- 
ing upon a mass of homogeneous, structureless mat- 
ter, and endowing it with life and intelligence; a 
mind that is capable of moving and moulding at 
will a structureless mass of protoplasm; a mind 
that is capable of developing an organism from an 
unorganized mass of primordial plasson ; a mind in 
which all the faculties of the highest manhood 
potentially exist. 

Professor Haeckel would himself admit all these 
propositions; for they are the essentials of the 
general theory of organic evolution. But he has 
not helped his theory of the spontaneous generation 
of such a mind from inorganic matter. If he had 
shown a structural organism antecedent to the mind 
that phenomenally manifested itself through said 
organism, he might, with some slight adumbrations 
of reason, have claimed that the organism was spon- 
taneously generated from inorganic matter, and that 
said organism, in turn, might have generated the 
mind. Aside from the inherent absurdity involved 
in the supposition that a bit of slime has the power 
to originate a man, Professor Haeckel might thus 
have evolved a theory of spontaneous generation that 
would at least have been an improvement upon any 
that atheism has yet wrested from the facts of 
organic evolution. But since he has demonstrated 
that mind antedates structural organism, his theory 
itself must be held to be a case of spontaneous 
generation. 

Professor Haeckel' s theories, however, are of 



THE ATHEISTIC PETITIO PRINCIPII 253 

small importance to the world when compared with 
the one stupendous fact that he has thus made 
known. Its bearing upon the whole question of the 
processes of progressive development of organic life 
is of transcendent interest and importance. It is 
symbolical of the whole process. The development 
of the amoeba from the moneron was a greater 
structural change than was the development of man 
from his simian ancestry, or the amphibian from 
the fish, or the bird from the crawling reptile. 
But natural selection, in the Darwinian sense, can 
by no possible stretch of the imagination be pre- 
sumed to have entered as a dominating factor in 
this, the first step in organic evolution. "The 
struggle for existence within the organism" is the 
only possible rational explanation. It is even more 
absurd, if possible, to suppose that the primary in- 
stinct that impelled this growth and development, 
the primary instinct that impelled the moneron to 
the acts of reproduction, nutrition, and locomotion, 
had its origin in natural selection. And yet this is 
the Darwinian doctrine, according to Romanes, of 
the origin of primary instincts. 

Now, the "struggle for existence within the 
organism," or, in more specific terms, the creative 
power or energy resident within the organism, hav- 
ing thus been shown to be the initial force that 
impelled the progressive development of the lowest 
animal organisms, it must be presumed, until the 
contrary is demonstrated, that the same initial 
energy lies at the bottom of all progressive changes 
of physical structure. 

Haeckel was right when he went back to the very 



254 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN 

beginning of sentient life in search of the one great 
primordial fact from which a broad, scientific gen- 
eralization could be legitimately formulated. He 
was right when he passed the amoeba by as pos- 
sessing, in itself, no significance worth considering 
except that which pertains to it as being the earliest 
" structural organism with organs " known to science. 
He was right when he went back to "the boundary 
line between organic and inorganic natural bodies " 
in search of a key to the great mystery surrounding 
the origin of life. But, unfortunately, he was also 
in search of proofs to sustain a preconceived hypothe- 
sis; and hence he was blinded to the real signifi- 
cance of the facts which he discovered. He did not 
even recognize the bearing of the fact that mind 
antedated organism upon the subsequent steps of 
the process of organic development; although, to do 
him entire justice, the trend of his argument did not 
require him to consider that question. All that he 
could derive from that stupendous fact was the lame 
and impotent conclusion that somehow it "must" 
be that mind and life are spontaneously generated 
from inorganic matter. Otherwise, he tells us, we 
have "no other resource but to believe in a super- 
natural miracle " (sic). 1 

Without stopping to discuss the subject of miracles, 
natural or supernatural, I desire to indicate, briefly, 
some of the inferences that seem to me to be logi- 
cally derivable from what we have learned, by the 
aid of Professor Haeckel, of the phenomenal mani- 
festation of life and mind in the moneron. I have 
already shown that the fact that mind in that animal 

1 Op. cit. p. 32. 



THE ATHEISTIC PETITIO PRINCIPII. 255 

is antecedent to physical organism, and that it con- 
trols and develops organism, is symbolical of the 
whole subsequent process of progressional develop- 
ment of physical organisms. 

But that is not the most important inference to be 
drawn from this phenomenon. It exemplifies that 
control of the mind over the body which modern 
science has done so much to verify and systematize 
in various directions. The significant feature of 
that control is that it does so in the entire absence 
of structural organism ; thus demonstrating the truth 
of the hypothesis that the subjective mind — the 
soul — ■ is immanent in the body and not inherent in 
it or in any of its physical organs. In other words, 
it is symbolical of the fact that the soul is not 
dependent for its existence upon physical organism, 
nor for its power upon the existence of physical 
organs. 

Again, it demonstrates the creative power of 
mind, and symbolizes the power from which it 
inherited its own potentialities, — the power that 
assembles cosmic matter and creates a universe. 

Finally, the primordial method of reproduction, 
as first revealed in the monera, namely, by fission or 
segmentation, is demonstrative of the fact that a 
completely organized mind can be segregated from 
the parent mind without destroying or modifying 
the powers of either; thus symbolizing the process 
by which an infinite number of individualized intelli- 
gences may be segregated from an infinite, omni- 
present intelligence. Thus a law — not a miracle — 
a law of infinite reproduction is revealed, which 
easily accounts for origin of life and mind, as well 



256 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

as for all the subsequent steps in the process of 
organic and mental evolution, including, of course, 
the origin of species. 

The intelligent reader will understand that the 
above propositions are provisionally assumed. Their 
verification will depend upon whether they accord 
with all the known facts of psychology and of organic 
and mental evolution. That must be more fully set 
forth in subsequent chapters. They are mentioned 
here merely by way of contrast between the infer- 
ences which atheism and theism respectively derive 
from the phenomena exhibited in the primordial 
germ. 

I have now shown that the crucial question at 
issue between atheism and theism, so far as the facts 
of organic evolution are in evidence, is whether or 
not mind antedates physical organism ; and that this 
involves the question of spontaneous generation on 
the one hand, and of natural selection on the other. 
I have shown that Haeckel, in assuming sponta- 
neous generation, has done so without one fact to 
sustain his assumption; but that, on the contrary, 
all the facts revealed by experimental science, 
together with all the observable phenomena of the 
beginning of organic life, tend to disprove his 
hypothesis. I have shown that the question of spon- 
taneous generation being a vital issue between 
atheism and theism, Professor Haeckel, in postulat- 
ing the affirmative without warrant of fact, has been 
guilty of the logical offence known as the "direct" 
petitio principii. I have also shown that Darwin, in 
his insistence upon natural selection as being the 
origin of species, has tacitly assumed the negative 



THE ATHEISTIC PETITIO PRINCIPII. 2 57 

of the proposition that mind antedates physical 
organism. I have shown that he has done so in 
defiance of all the facts of experimental science 
(artificial selection), and in direct contravention to 
all the observable phenomena of the beginning of 
organic life (the moneron). 

In thus illicitly assuming the thing to be proven, 
without warrant of fact and in contravention of all 
the facts, he has been guilty of the "indirect" 
petitio ; or, as Mr. Herbert Spencer would term it, 
the " disguised " petitio principii. 

It will thus be seen that the atheistic theories of 
the Darwinian evolutionists are all based upon pure 
assumption. It remains to prove that the facts of 
evolution disprove the atheistic theories of evolu- 
tionists. That is to say, the theories of Darwinian 
evolutionists are atheistic ; their facts are theistic. 



*? 



CHAPTER III. 

THE MIND OF MAN'S EARLIEST EARTHLY ANCESTOR. 

The Doctrine of Heredity. — All that is inherent in Man is what he 
inherited from his Ancestry, Near and Remote. — The Potentials 
of Manhood, therefore, resided in the Moneron. — Propositions 
reduced to Syllogistic Form. — The Two Primordial Instincts as 
shown in the Moneron. — The Prepotent Agency of Physical De- 
velopment and of Human Progress. — A Complete Law of Evo- 
lution thus exemplified in the Monera. — Thus Progress toward 
Highest Development follows Lines of Least Resistance. — Only 
Good implanted in Man's Earliest Earthly Ancestor. — What is 
Instinct ? — Atheistic Theories considered. — Herbert Spencer's 
Reflex Action. — Romanes vs. Spencer. — Facts and not Phrases 
to be considered. — Analysis of the Mental Faculties of the Mone- 
ron. — Based on Haeckel's Statements. — Sensation, Movement, 
Nutrition, Reproduction, Regeneration, Intelligence. — The Prom- 
ise and Potency of a Human Soul. — That Intelligence comprises 
a Knowledge of the Primary Laws of Organic Life. — Reflex 
Action presupposes Subjective Intelligence. — It is a Recognition 
of Danger coupled with an Effort to avoid it. — It never makes a 
Mistake. — The Simplest Manifestation of Instinct of Self-Preser- 
vation. — The Old Psychology at Fault. — It knew Nothing of Sub- 
jective Mind. — All its Data from the Objective Mind. — Phe- 
nomena due to Sensation being prompted by Intelligence, it fol- 
lows that the same is true of the Other Faculties. — Mind of the 
Moneron differs in no Essential from Subjective Mind of Man, 
except in Degree. — The same Terms define its Powers and Attri- 
butes. — Nor can Faculties of the Moneron be adequately described 
except in Terms that define Omniscience. 

THE fundamental doctrine of all forms of the 
theory of evolution applied to biology is that 
all living creatures, man included, descended from 
a common ancestry. Science has demonstrated this 
to be true by tracing the ancestry of man back 
through numerous gradients to the very lowest forms 



MIND OF MAN'S EARLIEST ANCESTOR. 259 

of organic life. A corollary of this is that the facul- 
ties of man constitute the sum of all his ancestral 
faculties and instincts that have remained useful or 
advantageous in the "struggle for life. " In other 
words, all that there is inherent in man is what he 
has inherited from his ancestry, near and remote. 
It follows that the potentialities of manhood resided 
in the lowest sentient being, — in the moneron. 

This is, in brief, the doctrine of heredity held and 
insisted upon by all evolutionists, from Darwin 
down, who have discarded the doctrine of special 
creations. And it was because science has been 
able practically to demonstrate this doctrine to be 
true, that the dogma of speciaL creations of genera 
and species has been yielded even by those who do 
not admit that God has thereby been eliminated 
from the universe. If science has demonstrated 
anything more clearly than another within the pur- 
view of biological research, it is that the faculties 
of man were inherited from his lower ancestry; and 
hence those faculties resided, potentially, in the 
lowest unicellular organism. Scientists may differ 
in regard to minor details relating to the specific 
processes by which the physical organisms of genera 
and species have been evolved; but the doctrine of 
heredity is common to all forms of the theory of 
evolution applied to biology. 

We are enabled, therefore, to start our argument 
with a proposition that will not be disputed by any 
scientific evolutionist : — 

The mental faculties of man are inherited from his 
lower ancestors, beginning with the lowest unicellular 
organism. 



26o THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

This general proposition cannot be successfully 
controverted, and no evolutionist will make the 
attempt. It involves another proposition, however, 
which, as before remarked, is its corollary ; namely, 
that the faculties of manhood exist potentially in the 
lowest form of animal life, to wit, the moneron. If 
the first proposition is true, the second is logically 
self-evident. But, lest some one might be in- 
clined to doubt the soundness of the latter proposi- 
tion, we will reduce it to the form of a syllogism, 
thus : — 

i. An inherited faculty presupposes the existence 
of that faculty, actually or potentially, in the an- 
cestry, near and remote, from which the inheritance 
was derived. 

2. Man inherited his faculties from his lower an- 
cestry, beginning with the lowest form of animal life. 

Therefore the faculties of manhood resided poten- 
tially in the lowest form of animal life. 

We now have an undisputed and indisputable 
proposition to start with, and one upon which I 
shall hereinafter strongly insist. It must be re- 
membered, however, that I have not, thus far in this 
chapter, stated any new propositions. I am merely 
trying to reduce to logical form and consistency the 
fundamental truths which evolutionists have discov- 
ered, and by which they have relegated the doctrine 
of special creations to the realm of superstition. 
These truths were, however, supposed to be atheistic 
by those who first applied them; but I shall en- 
deavor to show that, when carried to their legitimate 
conclusion, they are the stronghold of scientific 
theism. 



MIND OF MAN'S EARLIEST ANCESTOR. 26 1 

The reader will now recall the fact that, in Part 
I. of this book, I have endeavored to strengthen the 
proposition that the potentialities of the highest 
order of manhood reside in the lower organisms. I 
did so by showing that all the instincts of the lower 
animals are essentially altruistic, save the one 
instinct of self-preservation. All the others, begin- 
ning with the instinct of reproduction, pertain to 
future generations, ■ — first, to the perpetuation of the 
species by reproduction, and secondly, to the care 
and preservation of the young. I traced the devel- 
opment of the altruistic instincts and impulses to 
the higher civilization of man, showing that they 
are infinitely stronger than the purely self-regarding 
instinct of self-preservation. I pointed out the fact 
that the altruistic instinct lies at the bottom of all 
progressive development, physical, mental, moral, 
and religious; and that in that sense it might be 
termed the "evolutionary instinct, " — the constant, 
effective energy, inherent in every sentient creature, 
that makes for physical, mental, and moral progress, 
for the higher civilization, for universal altruism. 

I have thus endeavored to strengthen the final 
view of Huxley, that the " struggle for existence 
within the organism " lies at the bottom of all pro- 
gressive physical development and of all structural 
changes of physiological organism, by showing that 
it is equally potent in mental, social, moral, and 
religious evolution. And I have thus endeavored 
to strengthen the proposition of the atheistic phi- 
losophers, that the potentials of manhood reside in 
the moneron, by showing that the first reproduc- 
tive act of that "organism without organs" was 



262 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

essentially altruistic and progressive; and that the 
instinctive emotion that prompted the act, together 
with its concomitant altruistic emotions, — the love 
of offspring and care for the young and helpless, as 
manifested in all those actions and enterprises that 
redound to the benefit of future generations, now 
constitute the prepotent agency of human progress. 

And the intelligent reader will not fail to note 
that, in thus reclassifying the human instincts and 
emotions by grouping all the instincts and impulses 
that pertain to the well-being of future generations 
into one class, which I have designated as "altru- 
istic," thus leaving the purely self-regarding instinct 
of self-preservation in a subordinate or subsidiary 
class by itself, I have suggested a law of evolu- 
tionary development the executive energy of which 
inheres in that prepotent group of altruistic emo- 
tions and impulses. But that of itself is not the 
most significant part of it. Its real significance 
consists in the fact that the same instincts and 
faculties that cause the progressive development of 
animal life and structural organism, also serve as 
the prepotent energy that causes the progressive 
development of mankind toward the higher civiliza- 
tion on lines leading to the ultimate goal of uni- 
versal altruism. Nor is this all; for, if this 
hypothesis is the true one, it follows that evolu- 
tionary progress, physical, mental, moral, and reli- 
gious, follows the lines of least resistance in nature. 
In other words, the natural tendency of all the 
instincts, except that of self-preservation, is altru- 
istic, that is, other-regarding; and the only task 
imposed upon mankind is that of regulating those 



MIND OF MAN'S EARLIEST ANCESTOR. 263 

instincts, including that of self-preservation, and 
directing their energies into normal channels. This 
is a far different task from that imposed by the old 
philosophies which regarded all the natural im- 
pulses of man as evil and only evil; which regarded 
the so-called "animal propensities " as something 
to be fought and annihilated, instead of regulated, 
restrained, purified, elevated, and legitimated. It 
gives to man a far different status in the moral uni- 
verse from that assumed by the egoistic philosophy 
of Mr. Herbert Spencer, which assumes that all 
human acts are prompted by selfishness; and that 
those of the purest altruism are but selfishness in a 
slightly less offensive form, but still selfish. In 
short, the old philosophies imposed upon man the 
task of laboring upon the lines of greatest resistance 
in nature whenever he sought to elevate himself or 
benefit mankind. Whereas the hypothesis that I 
have ventured to advance presupposes that good and 
only good was implanted in the primordial germ. 
And hence I have ventured to assent to and to em- 
phasize the doctrine of the atheistic evolutionists, 
that the potentials of manhood, the loftiest man- 
hood, are resident in the lowest form of animal life. 
It will now be in order to inquire what evidence 
is to be found in the mental phenomena of the lower 
orders of animal life to justify such a stupendous 
and far-reaching generalization. To that end we 
will, partly by way of recapitulation, group those 
phenomena which are demonstrative of the posses- 
sion, by the lower animals, of faculties and powers 
some of which, by development alone, may reach the 
highest possible grades of human intelligence. 



264 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN 

Let us begin with the intelligence possessed by 
the lowest unicellular organism. That intelligence 
is designated by the name of " instinct ;" and by 
most of the atheistic philosophers it is thus dis- 
missed as possessing no special significance beyond 
the fact that it is a curious phenomenon common to 
the lower organisms. Their object, in fact, seems 
to be to avoid the obvious significance of the phe- 
nomena; and hence they dismiss it by a resort to the 
usual petitio principii. This, as I have already 
pointed out, is the invariable method of atheistic 
reasoning whenever its votaries are confronted with 
a phenomenon that clearly points to a theistic con- 
clusion. Hence they have resorted to the use of 
such words and phrases as " irritability " and " reflex 
action," to account for the obvious intelligence of 
the lower organisms. Thus, Mr. Herbert Spencer 
classes all reflex action as instinct; and then, pre- 
sumably, in order to show that it is a poor rule that 
will not work both ways, he coolly informs us that 
all instinct is "reflex action." To do him entire 
justice, however, it must be stated that he does 
not confine himself to this formula; for when he 
comes across a particularly hard nut to crack, — 
that is to say, when he comes to an instinctive 
action that obviously is not a "reflex action," he 
ably gathers it in under the term " compound reflex 
action." 

I will not undertake the superfluous task of refut- 
ing a proposition so obviously unsound ; for Romanes 
has ably performed that task in his " Mental Evolu- 
tion in Animals," to which the reader is referred. I 
will only pause to remark that Mr. Spencer's phi- 



MIND OF MAN'S EARLIEST ANCESTOR. 265 

losophy of instinct justifies the well-worn definition 
of metaphysics, namely : " Metaphysics consists in the 
invention of terms that have no meaning, and then 
explaining things by those terms. " 

As Romanes has clearly shown, though perhaps in 
milder and more round-about phraseology than I am 
able to employ, the terms " reflex action " and " com- 
pound reflex action " are absolutely meaningless 
when applied to the great bulk of instincts with 
which animals and human beings are endowed. 

But what is instinct? This question can be an- 
swered intelligently only by confining ourselves to 
facts and phenomena, and divesting ourselves of the 
prejudices engendered by the use of those so-called 
11 scientific " terms by which the whole subject has 
been so ably obscured. Especially do we need to 
divest ourselves of the impressions engendered by 
the use of terms that in themselves imply a theory 
of causation, such as " reflex action," whether simple 
or compound, " irritability," " inspiration," " special 
providence," " special creation," and " spontaneous 
generation." In other words, let us examine the 
facts of instinct, and then see if we can find a defini- 
tion that will fit the facts. When that is done, we 
may look for a theory of causation that will fit the 
facts, — not before. That is to say, let us treat the 
question by the inductive method, — reasoning from 
facts to the general law underlying them, — and not 
by first formulating a disputable postulate and then 
distorting the facts to fit the assumed theory of 
causation. Now, what are the facts, the primordial 
facts, of instinct? I begin with the lowest animal 
organism, for it is at the very threshold of the or- 



266 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN 

ganic world that we must find, if anywhere, the facts 
that will reveal the origin of life. 

Again, we will accept the facts from atheistic 
sources. If the reader will now re-examine the 
chapter in Part I. in which the psychic life of micro- 
organisms is discussed, he will more fully appreciate 
the point we are about to examine. In the mean 
time it will be sufficient to mention the salient fea- 
tures of what we have previously learned. Haeckel 
tells us that the moneron — that wonderful " or- 
ganism without organs," that stands upon the very 
threshold of the organic world — is endowed with the 
faculty of sensation. That is to say, it is capable of 
feeling, for it reacts to stimuli. It shrinks from con- 
tact with that which will injure it. In other words, 
it not only has sensation, but it is endowed with the 
instinct of self-preservation, and instantly adopts 
the only means of self-protection within its power. 
It adapts means to ends; and this, according to 
Romanes and Binet, is indubitable evidence of 
intelligence. 

Haeckel also tells us that the moneron seeks and 
obtains nourishment; and, having found it, it per- 
forms the functions of digestion and assimilation. It 
can be fed artificially, and the process of digestion 
can be plainly seen under the microscope. The 
food, when colored for that purpose, can be seen to 
enter the body indifferently at any and all points, 
and to move from one part of the body to another, — 
"irregularly driven about in all directions;" 1 thus 
demonstrating at once the total absence of physical 
organism, and the power which is resident in its 

1 The Evolution of Man, vol. ii. p. 47. 



MIND OF MAN'S EARLIEST ANCESTOR. 267 

mind to sustain life by adapting means to that end. 
Moreover, Binet tells us that unicellular organisms 
exercise the power of choice between that which is 
nutritious and that which is inert or deleterious ; all 
of which constitute further proofs of intelligence, 
further demonstrations of the existence of a mind 
organism. 

Again, Haeckel informs us that his moneron is 
endowed with powers of locomotion. That is to say, 
it can move from place to place by means of impro- 
vised limbs (pseudopodia) which it projects at will 
from any part of the body. 1 It is by means of these 
improvised limbs that it moves about in search of 
nourishment; and Professor Gates has demonstrated 
that it has a memory of the direction in which food 
may be obtained, and that it can be educated to return 
to the place where it has once found food to its lik- 
ing. This, as Ribot has clearly shown, is indubitable 
proof of consciousness. 2 

Lastly, Professor Haeckel tells us that the moneron 
reproduces itself asexually, that is, by fission or 
segmentation. The particular species which we have 
been considering, namely, the Protamceba, after it 
has attained a certain size, simply separates into two 
pieces. "Thus, in the simplest possible way, two 
new individuals proceed by self-division from one 
quite simple individual/' 3 

And thus was performed the first act of primordial 
altruism. . Thus was taken the first step in the pro- 

1 It should be noted here that there are many different genera and 
species of monera; but the essentials above enumerated are the 
same in all. 

2 See " Diseases of Personality," p. 6. 

3 Op. cit. p. 48. 



268 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN 

cess of organic evolution, — the first advance in the 
phylogenetic series that culminated in man. Thus 
were exhibited for the first time in the organic 
history of the earth all the phenomena of life, of 
sensation, movement, nutrition, reproduction, and 
intelligence, — the promise and potentialities of a 
human soul. 

These are the facts, these the phenomena, relating 
to the instincts of the primordial germ. Now, let us 
for the moment ignore all the " set phrase of speech " 
with which theorists have befogged the question, 
especially all those words and phrases which imply 
preconceived theories of causation. 

Looking the simple facts squarely in the face, 
then, what do we find ? 

First, a bit of protoplasma that is alive. It is a 
living, moving entity. It is an animate creature, and 
hence is endowed with a mind; for having a mind is 
the distinction between the animate and the inanimate 
in all nature. 

Secondly, we have found a sentient creature that 
does things; and voluntary action is a crucial dis- 
tinction between the animate and the inanimate. 

Thirdly, we have found an animate, sentient crea- 
ture that knows something. We know that it knows 
something because it does something; and the only 
criterion by which we can judge of what or how 
much it knows, is by observation of what it does. 
If therefore we find that this creature invariably 
does what reason would approve, we must conclude 
that its intelligence, limited though it may be, is of a 
very superior quality. 

Fourthly, we find that this creature invariably does 



MIND OF MAN'S EARLIEST ANCESTOR. 269 

that which reason would approve. Thus, (1) it 
never rushes into danger, but avoids it if possible. 
(Reaction to sensory stimuli.) (2) It does not lie 
inert, but moves about in search of food by means 
of improvised limbs. (Spontaneous movement.) 
(3) Having found food, it does not reject it, but 
absorbs it, rejecting only that which is deleterious. 
What it has absorbed it digests and assimilates. 
(Nutrition.) (4) Finally, having attained maturity, it no 
longer confines its energies to purely selfish acts ; but 
it reproduces itself, and thus provides for the perpetu- 
ation of its species, — provides for future generations, 
for evolutionary progress. (Reproduction.) 

In short, the moneron exercises all the primary 
functions and produces all the primary phenomena 
of organic life, — sensation, movement, nutrition, and 
reproduction. And it does so in a way that presup- 
poses intelligence, for it adapts means to ends, and 
exercises the power of choice ; which, as we have 
already learned from Binet, Romanes, Gates, Ribot, 
and others, is the crucial test of intelligence. 

Now, to reduce what we have learned from the 
actions of the moneron to its lowest terms, we must 
conclude : — 

1. That the precision with which the moneron 
performs its functions, and the invariably beneficent 
results which follow, are demonstrative that its acts 
are in accordance with a law, and that that law is the 
primary law of organic life. 

2. That the intelligence with which the moneron 
is endowed consists of a knowledge of the primary 
law of organic life. 

I have shown in previous chapters that instinct and 



270 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

intuition are identical, differing only in degree and 
subject-matter, and that they both have to do exclu- 
sively with general laws or first principles. The con- 
clusion, therefore, that the moneron is endowed with 
a knowledge of the primary laws of organic life not 
only accords with what we know of instinct or intui- 
tion in general, but it is in strict accordance with the 
observable phenomena in the life of the moneron. 

We are prepared, therefore, to define instinct, 
as we find it existing in the lowest form of animal 
life, as the power of immediate perception or appre- 
hension of the essential laws of its being ; this power 
being antecedent to and independent of reason, in- 
struction, or experience. 

Now, whatsoever may be one's theory of causation, 
or his hypothesis as to the origin of life, whether it 
be spontaneous generation or special creation, it can- 
not be denied that the facts of the organic history 
of the moneron justify this definition of its instincts. 
This conclusion cannot be evaded without plunging 
into the realms of the supernatural and setting up the 
hypothesis of perpetual miracle. That is to say, the 
monera are obviously impelled to action by an intel- 
ligent energy or force ; and this intelligence is either 
resident within the organism or it is an extraneous 
force. As the latter would imply a perpetual mira- 
cle, science is driven to accept the other hypothesis 
in order to keep within the domain of natural law. 
Even Mr. Herbert Spencer's doctrine of reflex action 
does not militate against the theory of an intelligent 
energy within ; for in its simplest form, that of reac- 
tion to peripheral stimuli, reflex action presupposes 
a subjective intelligence within the organism, — an 



MIND OF MAN'S EARLIEST ANCESTOR. 27 1 

intelligence that is endowed with the instinct of self- 
preservation. In other words, reaction to stimuli is 
neither more nor less than shrinking from danger, — 
an act which is necessarily prompted by an intelli- 
gence which apprehends or perceives an imminent 
danger; an intelligence which instantly adapts means 
to ends by adopting the only course by which it can 
avert the threatened injury, namely, by moving itself 
away from the danger point. If the act were not 
prompted by intelligence, it would be just as apt to 
move toward the danger point as from it. In this 
regard the action of the moneron differs in no respect 
from that of the most highly organized human being. 
The latter, however, employs a nervous organism, 
the afferent nerves conveying the impulse to a nerve 
centre, whence it is reflected back as an efferent 
impulse, independently of the volition of the objective 
mind. 

It is at this point that the old psychology fails to 
account correctly for reflex action. Knowing nothing 
of the subjective mind, as distinguished from the 
mind of which the brain is the organ ; and realizing 
that the efferent impulse is independent of volition, 
that is, the volition of the objective mind, the in- 
ference was that, somehow, reflex action is not 
prompted by intelligence. Whereas, in point of fact, 
it is prompted by the highest intelligence that man 
possesses, namely, that of the subjective mind, — the 
mind of instinct or intuition, the mind that is ever 
alert for the preservation of the body. Reflex 
action, therefore, as manifested in reaction to a 
peripheral stimulus, as when a limb is pricked by 
a sharp instrument, is the simplest phenomenal 



272 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

manifestation of the instinct of self-preservation. 
It is manifested alike in the moneron and in man, 
for it is prompted by the same subjective intelligence. 
There is this difference, however: in the moneron 
the act is performed independently of physical 
organs, which is another demonstrative proof that 
the subjective mind antedated physical organism. 

Having shown that the phenomena due to sensation 
in the moneron are prompted by intelligence, we 
need not produce arguments to show that all its 
other functions are prompted by the same intelli- 
gence; for two of the other three functions are 
manifestations of the same instinct, namely, that 
of self-preservation. That is to say, three of the 
four classes of the phenomena of organic life, as 
manifested in the primordial germ, namely, those 
of sensation, movement, and nutrition, are all due 
to that instinct. The phenomenon of reproduction, 
on the other hand, is due to a totally different 
instinct, as I have hereinbefore pointed out. I have 
ventured to designate it as the " evolutionary in- 
stinct " or the " altruistic instinct." It is entitled 
to the first designation because it constitutes that 
powerful, creative energy that lies at the bottom 
of all progressive physical development of animal 
life. It is entitled to the second designation because 
it prompts to acts that pertain exclusively to future 
generations, and is therefore the basis of all the 
altruistic emotions. 

And this is why I have felt compelled to define 
instinct, as we find it manifested in the lowest form 
of animal life, in the general terms I have employed. 
That is to say, the instinct of the moneron is not 



MIND OF MAN'S EARLIEST ANCESTOR. 273 

merely the instinct of self-preservation, although 
it includes that instinct; but it also includes that 
which is in a sense the exact opposite. In a word, 
it includes that energy that lies at the bottom of all 
evolutionary development, — physical, mental, moral, 
and spiritual. It is upon this hypothesis alone that 
evolutionists can logically predicate the doctrine of 
the descent of man from the moneron. It is upon 
these facts alone that they can logically assume 
that the potentials of manhood are resident in the 
moneron. 

The instincts of the moneron cannot therefore be 
adequately defined in terms that will not apply to 
the highest intuitions of man ; for if man is descended 
from the moneron, it follows that his highest intuitions 
are the result of the development of identical faculties 
existing inchoate in that ancestor. 

Moreover, the instincts of the moneron cannot be 
adequately defined or described except in terms that 
are also definitive of omniscience. 

We find, therefore, in the lowest unicellular organ- 
ism known to science, psychical faculties that by 
development become the highest mental attributes 
of man, and by extension to infinity, the highest 
conceivable attributes of an Omniscient Deity. 



iS 



CHAPTER IV. 

OTHER GODLIKE POTENTIALS IN THE MIND OF THE 
MONERON. 

Endowed with Creative Powers. — The Real "Origin of Species." — 
Haeckel's Admissions. — Its Development from the Undifferen- 
tiated Moneron to the Differentiated Amoeba. — The Energy 
" from within." — The Greatest Single Step in the Process of 
Evolution. — The Key to the Whole Mystery. — The Creative 
Power of Mind. — We must infer that all other Changes in 
Organism were due to the same Creative Energy. — It is the 
Constant Force behind all Progressive Development. — Huxley 
on the Innate Creative Powers of Animal Intelligence. — The 
Growth and Development of the Salamandrine Egg. — The Power 
of the Water Newt to reproduce Lost Limbs. — These Powers 
Typical Examples of Creative Energy. — They are Nature's 
Divine Revelations. — This Creative Power by Extension to 
Infinity would mean Omnipotence. — Its Knowledge of the 
Essential Laws of its Being by Extension would mean Omni- 
science. — Its Power is that of Mind over Matter. — It is, then, 
essentially Godlike, differing only in Degree. — The Tendency 
of Science to name Things in the Absence of an Explanation. — 
The Popular Belief that Names do explain Things. — Illustrative 
Examples. — The Theory of the Unconscious. — Hence Learned 
Talk of the Unconscious Acts of the Lower Animals. — All the 
Facts of Experience show that the Subjective Mind of Man is 
most intensely Conscious. — We have a Right to infer that the 
same is True of Animals. — The same Laws prevail. — Subjective 
"Unconsciousness," therefore, is Objective Ignorance of the 
States of Subjective Consciousness. — The Same is True of our 
Knowledge of Consciousness of Lower Animals. — Instinctive 
Acts are therefore presumably Conscious Acts. — The Conscious- 
ness of a Godlike Mind. — Whence came it ? — There are but 
Two Hypotheses. — One is Spontaneous Generation; the Other is 
Divine Inheritance. — One is Atheism ; the Other is Theism. — 



OTHER POWERS OF THE MONERON. 275 

One is without a Fact to support it, — it rests upon Pure 
Assumption, — a Petitio Principii, Gross and Palpable ; the 
Other will be discussed in the Ensuing Chapters. 

I HAVE now shown that the mental faculties with 
which the lowest unicellular organism is endowed 
contain the promise and potency of a human soul. 
I have thus confirmed the essential hypothesis of 
evolution, which is that man descended from the 
primordial germ, and hence, ex hypothesis in the 
primordial germ resided the potentialities of man- 
hood. In doing this I have been careful to draw 
upon the acknowledged authorities on the subject 
of evolution for my facts; and I have given to 
those facts the only interpretation that can possibly 
confirm their fundamental hypothesis. I have also 
shown that the only legitimate interpretation of their 
facts not only confirms the theory that the poten- 
tialities of manhood reside in the primordial germ, 
but that the quality of mind exhibited in man's 
remotest earthly ancestor is essentially godlike, 
differing from Omniscience only in degree, and 
not in kind. 

It remains to inquire what other godlike powers 
inhere in the mind with which the moneron is en- 
dowed. And, in doing so, let us continue the policy 
of ignoring all preconceived theories of causation, 
looking only to the facts for guidance to conclusions. 
The first question to be considered is, What powers 
might we reasonably expect to find in a being that 
is invested with such transcendent potentialities as 
science has found the moneron to be clothed withal? 
We have already seen that that being is invested with 
the potentialities of manhood ; nay, that its intelli- 



276 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN 

gence is godlike in kind. Now, if it is true, as 
Lamarck holds, and as Huxley believes, that the 
" struggle for life within the organism " lies at the 
bottom of all physiological changes incident to pro- 
gressive development of animal life on this planet, 
we may reasonably expect to find evidences of 
the fact in the lowest unicellular organisms. Again, 
if it is true that an energy inheres in the mental 
organism of animals that is equal to the production 
of physiological changes, or, in other words, that is 
able to originate new species, the power can be 
designated by no words less significant than creative 
energy. 

Let us, then, call Professor Haeckel to the stand 
once more, and inquire how the second stage was 
reached in the process of organic evolution. He 
says : — 

" Next to the simple cytod-bodies of the monera, as 
the second ancestral stage in the human pedigree (as in 
that of all other animals) , comes the simple cell, that most 
undifferentiated cell-form, which, at the present time, still 
leads an independent solitary life, as the amoeba. For 
the first and oldest process of organic differentiation, which 
affected the homogeneous and structureless plasson-body of 
the monera, caused the separation of the latter into two dif- 
ferent substances : an inner firmer substance, the kernel, or 
nucleus ; and an outer, softer substance, the cell-substance, 
or protoplasma. By this extremely important separative 
process, by the differentiation of the plasson into nucleus 
and protoplasm, the organized cell originated from the 
structureless cytod, the nucleated from the non-nucleated 
plastid. That the cells which first appeared upon the earth 
originated in this manner, by the differentiation of the 



OTHER POWERS OF THE MONERON. 277 

monera, is a conception which in the present condition of 
histological knowledge seems quite allowable ; for we can 
even yet directly observe this oldest histological process of 
differentiation in ontogeny. ,,1 

Is it too much to say that here we have a key- 
to the whole mystery with which the question of 
organic evolution is invested? Here is the first 
tangible evidence we have of the creative power of 
mind. And here, most certainly, is the key to the 
mystery that has been woven about the origin of 
species. For the amoeba is the first distinct species 
that had its origin in another and an antecedent 
species. Moreover, as I have before remarked, the 
step from the moneron to the amoeba was the great- 
est single step that has ever been taken in organic 
history. For the difference between any organism 
and no organism is necessarily greater than the 
difference between any two successive or contiguous 
organisms in the phylogenetic series. 
. Now, the question is, What was the power that pro- 
duced the change from the moneron to the amoeba, 
and where does it reside? For there must have 
been some form of energy behind so vast a change, 
unless, indeed, we are content to relegate the whole 
question to the domain of chance or of miracle. As 
natural selection cannot be supposed to figure in the 
case, we must dismiss the hypothesis of chance as 
untenable. As science cannot admit the hypothesis 
of miracle, we are compelled to look elsewhere for 
a solution of the problem. 

Now, there are two things that are self-evident 

1 The Evolution of Man, vol. ii. p. 50. 



278 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

in regard to the energy that lies at the bottom 
of the change from the moneron to the amoeba: 
(1) we know that this energy exists; and (2) we 
know that it is moved by intelligence. That is to 
say, it is an intelligent force. We know that much 
because it constantly does that which reason would 
approve. Its efforts are constantly directed toward 
the accomplishment of some specific, beneficent end. 
In short, it adapts means to ends, which is the test 
of intelligence as distinguished from chance. 

We also know that this intelligent energy is either 
resident within the organism or that it is an extrane- 
ous force. As the latter implies a miracle, we are 
driven to the conclusion that an intelligent, creative 
energy is resident within the lowest animal organism ; 
and that this intelligent, creative energy originated 
the first species of animals known to science as hav- 
ing a physical organism. 

From this primordial fact we have a right, until 
the contrary is proven, to infer that all subsequent 
changes of physiological organism are brought about 
by the same agency. That is to say, we have a right 
to infer that the intelligent, creative energy that has 
been shown to exist in the moneron, that energy 
which Lamarck designates as " appetency," and 
Huxley describes as " the struggle for life within the 
organism," is the constant force, the impellent energy, 
that is the efficient cause of all progressive develop- 
ment of animal life ; that is, in short, the origin of 
species. 

Does any one doubt the existence of creative 
energy within the animal organism? If so, let him 
observe some of the commonest phenomena within 



OTHER POWERS OF THE M ONE RON. 279 

the range of observation of everybody, — phenomena 
so common, indeed, that few pause to reflect upon 
their profound significance. For instance, let him 
study the development of the chick from the egg or 
the plant from the seed. Apropos of this, Professor 
Huxley, in speaking of heredity and the physiology 
of reproduction, has this to say : — 

" The student of Nature wonders the more and is 
astonished the less, the more conversant he becomes with 
her operations ; but of all the perennial miracles she offers 
to his inspection, perhaps the most worthy of his admiration 
is the development of a plant or of an animal from its 
embryo. Examine the recently laid egg of some common 
animal, such as a salamander or a newt. It is a minute 
spheroid in which the best microscope will reveal nothing 
but a structureless sac, enclosing a glairy fluid, holding 
granules in suspension. But strange possibilities lie dor- 
mant in that semi-fluid globule. Let a moderate supply of 
warmth reach its watery cradle, and the plastic matter un- 
dergoes changes so rapid, and so purposelike in their 
succession, that one can only compare them to those 
operated by a skilled modeller upon a formless lump of 
clay. As with an invisible trowel, the mass is divided 
and subdivided into smaller and smaller portions, until it is 
reduced to an aggregation of granules not too large to build 
withal the finest fabrics of the nascent organism. And, 
then, it is as if a delicate finger traced out the line to be 
occupied by the spinal column, and moulded the contour 
of the body ; pinching up the head at one end, the tail at 
the other, and fashioning flank and limb into due sala- 
mandrine proportions, in so artistic a way that, after watch- 
ing the process hour by hour, one is almost involuntarily 
possessed by the notion that some more subtle aid to vision 



280 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

than an achromatic would show the hidden artist, with his 
plan before him, striving with skilful manipulation to perfect 
his work. 

" As life advances, and the young amphibian ranges the 
waters, the terror of his insect contemporaries, not only are 
the nutritious particles supplied by its prey, by the addition 
of which to its frame growth takes place, laid down, each 
in its proper spot, and in due proportion to the rest, as to 
reproduce the form, the color, and the size, characteristic of 
the parental stock ; but even the wonderful powers of repro- 
ducing lost parts possessed by these animals are controlled 
by the same governing tendency. Cut off the legs, the tail, 
the jaws, separately or all together, and, as Spallanzani 
showed long ago, these parts not only grow again, but the 
redintegrated limb is formed on the same type as those 
which were lost. The new jaw, or leg, is a newt's, and never 
by any accident more like that of a frog." * 

I have quoted this passage from Huxley for two 
reasons : First, because evolutionists rightly hold that 
the laws governing the development of the germinal 
cell are the same as those governing the development 
of the primordial germ. That is to say, the onto- 
genetic history of the germinal cell in many cases is 
a reproduction of the salient features of the phylo- 
genetic history of the primordial germ. The creative 
energy, therefore, the operations of which may be 
observed under the microscope in the one case, is 
illustrative of powers which are exercised in the other. 
Secondly, the reproduction of lost limbs by the water 
newt is an example, which each may observe for him- 
self, of that creative power, resident within the animal 
organism, that is the source and agency of all organic 

1 Darwiniana, p. 29 et seq. 



OTHER POWERS OF THE M ONE RON. 28 1 

growth and development. Facts are Nature's divine 
revelations; and she never fails to give us patent 
exemplifications of her latent powers. 

I have now shown that the intelligence resident in 
the lowest form of animal life is of such a nature that, 
by extension to infinity, it could be characterized by 
no word but " omniscience. " And I have shown that 
this same intelligence is invested with creative powers 
such as, by enlargement to infinity, would constitute 
omnipotence. 

Its knowledge is of the essential laws of its being; 
and this knowledge is antecedent to reason, experience, 
or instruction. It is intuitive knowledge; but it is 
perfect, for it never makes a mistake. What more 
can be said of omniscience? 

Its power is that of mind over matter. It assembles 
matter and creates a structural organism. What 
more can be said of omnipotence than that it as- 
sembles matter and creates a structural universe? 

Proportioned to its stage of development and the 
limits of its environment, therefore, the mind of the 
moneron is essentially godlike. 

The underlying facts leading to these conclusions 
no evolutionist can or will deny. Atheistic philoso- 
phers will talk learnedly about the " unconscious/' 
automatic acts of the lower organisms, and will 
gravely inform us that there is no intelligence in in- 
stinct; that it is all accounted for by the use of some 
such words as " irritability," or " reflex action ; " 
and that even the hardest problems can be solved by 
the use of the phrase " compound reflex action. " 
To be entirely candid, it must be said that these 
and other words and phrases of similar import have 



282 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

served their purpose admirably; for the average 
atheistic mind happens to be so constructed that it 
considers any perplexing phenomenon to be satis- 
factorily and scientifically explained when some emi- 
nent philosopher gives it a name. 

Thus, the late Professor W. B. Carpenter many years 
ago summarily disposed of a very large instalment of 
psychic phenomena by inventing the term " uncon- 
scious cerebration. " If the term ever had a meaning, 
nobody has found it out; but it served its purpose 
for many years, and was confidently believed by many 
to be an extremely scientific explanation of things. 
Since then the theory of the " unconscious " has been 
extended to great lengths. Some have even held 
that God, " if there is a God," is himself unconscious. 
Others confidently assert that the lower animals act 
without consciousness, — that all instinctive acts are 
devoid of intelligence, etc. Without stopping to 
indulge in an unprofitable, speculative discussion of 
the question, I would ask, What does any one know 
about the consciousness of the lower animals? What, 
in fact, does any one know of the consciousness of 
his own subjective mind? Some have gone so far as 
to hold that it, too, is unconscious, and have desig- 
nated it " the unconscious mind." Others call it 
the " subconscious mind," hinting that its conscious- 
ness, what little there is of it, is of a very inferior 
quality. 

The truth is that all the phenomena of the subjec- 
tive mind go to prove that it is the most intensely 
conscious mind that we know anything of; that it is 
constantly alert, sleeplessly active, and untiringly 
vigilant Its potentially perfect memory has been 



OTHER POWERS OF THE MONERON. 283 

made manifest in thousands of ways. 1 Its intuitive 
knowledge of the laws of its being is a matter of his- 
tory. Its prodigious power of rapid mentation, as 
shown in mathematical prodigies and revealed by 
those who have been rescued from drowning, is well 
known to every investigator. That it is, in short, in- 
tensely conscious of infinitely more than can possibly 
be cognized by the objective senses, is the most cer- 
tain and significant truth revealed by modern experi- 
mental psychology. 

In point of fact, all that there is of unconscious- 
ness in the mind of man is that of his objective 
mind. That is to say, the objective mind is uncon- 
scious, or ignorant, of the consciousness of the sub- 
jective mind ; that is, of the extent and character of 
that consciousness. All that we know or can know 
of it is what we can learn by the study of its phe- 
nomena. By that study w r e know that the subjective 
mind of man is intensely conscious of all that has 
ever been cognized, however superficially, by his 
objective mind; for we know that it is endowed with 
a memory that is potentially perfect. We also know 
that it possesses the power of intuitional perception 
of essential truth, differing in degree, but not in kind, 
from the instinctive faculties of the lower animals. 
We know these things, not only because phenomena 
have been observed to occur spontaneously which ex- 
hibit these faculties and powers, but because they can 
be experimentally reproduced by well-known means. 

These are the facts, and these are the only facts, by 
which we can determine the question of conscious- 
ness in the instinctive acts of the lower animals. 

1 See " The Law of Psychic Phenomena." 



284 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN 

Starting, then, from this basis of fact, and knowing 
that man inherited his subjective faculties from the 
lower animals, we have the right to infer that the 
instinct of the lower animals is identical in kind with 
the subjective mind of man. 

This being true, it follows that every instinctive 
act of every animal, from the moneron to man, is an 
act of subjective consciousness, — a consciousness 
that is infinitely more pronounced, alert, and potent 
than any of which the objective intelligence of man 
can conceive or can realize from experience. 

We are now prepared to realize how and why it 
is that the potentialities of manhood reside in the 
moneron. We can now understand how and why it 
is that the transcendent faculties of man were inherited 
from the lowest animal organism. It is simply be- 
cause those faculties existed, inchoate but potential, 
in that organism. 

Thus far I have not travelled outside of the general 
doctrines of the evolutionists, except for the purpose 
of finding valid reasons for accepting their funda- 
mental hypothesis that man is the product of evolu- 
tionary development from the lowest forms of animal 
life. In doing so, however, I have shown that they 
" builded better than they knew; " for in man's ear- 
liest earthly ancestor there existed a mind which any 
man may be proud to claim as his heritage, — a 
mind that in its essence is divine. 

Whence came it? That is the great question in 
which the whole world is interested. From the evo- 
lutionary standpoint there are two hypotheses to be 
considered, and only two ; for in undertaking to dis- 
cuss the question upon a purely scientific basis, we 



OTHER POWERS OF THE M ONE RON. 285 

have tacitly agreed to ignore all theories not based 
upon observable phenomena; and the phenomena 
which we have adopted as the basis of our argument 
are those of organic and mental evolution. This, of 
course, precludes the discussion of such questions as 
that of special creations ; or, in fact, of any other 
theory or dogma not based upon the facts and 
phenomena within the purview of our special line of 
inquiry. 

I repeat, therefore, that, accepting the facts of 
organic and mental evolution, there are but two 
hypotheses to be considered in dealing with the 
question, What is the source and origin of life and 
mind on this planet? 

One hypothesis is that of spontaneous genera- 
tion ; and the other is that of divine inheritance. 
The first is the atheistic theory of fortuitism, or 
chance ; the other is the theistic theory of cause 
and effect. 

The theory of fortuitism is very simple, and hence 
it commends itself to that very large class of people 
who, having mastered the axiom that " The greatest 
truths are the simplest," infer that all simple state- 
ments are great truths. 

I am aware that it will be vehemently denied that 
the doctrine of spontaneous generation is the doctrine 
of fortuitism, or chance ; for either of these words is 
to the atheistic evolutionist as the red rag to the 
mad bull. Nevertheless, a simple analysis of the 
doctrine will reveal its true character. The theory is 
that certain chemical substances, when they happen 
to be in juxtaposition, unite to form protoplasm, and 
that protoplasm generates mind. 



286 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

That is simple enough, but it is fortuitism ; for if 
it had not so happened that exactly the right kind of 
chemicals came together in exactly the right propor- 
tions, the organic world would still have been literally 
" without form and void." There would have been 
no protoplasm, and hence no " basis of life." The 
only escape from this logical dilemma would be by 
the admission, either that protoplasm was a special 
creation, or that it was the result of a law of organic 
evolutionary development, of which the formation of 
protoplasm was to be the first grand step in a phy- 
logenetic series culminating in man. But as this 
would approach dangerously near the teleological 
domain they cannot be expected to make any such 
admission; especially since the Darwinian philos- 
ophers hold that all subsequent steps in evolution are 
due to chance. Their theory of evolution would 
lack coherence if they hesitated to refer the first step 
in the process to the same convenient and " simple " 
hypothesis. 

All this, however, is a question of very small 
importance when compared with the main issue, 
which, in plain language, is this : — 

Is primordial slime endowed with the faculty of 
generating a godlike mind ? 

Or, to put it within the limits of their own estimate 
of the mind of the primordial germ, Is primitive 
slime endowed with the faculty of generating a mind 
invested, ab initio , with the potentialities of manhood? 

It must now be remembered that the Darwinians 
have not produced one fact that even suggests the 
possibility that life and mind were thus spontaneously 
generated. On the contrary, their ablest scientists 



OTHER POWERS OF THE M ONE RON. 287 

are compelled to admit that their most careful and 
painstaking experiments have failed to confirm the 
hypothesis. And Haeckel himself is compelled to 
declare that the theory is adopted simply because 
" this assumption is required by the demand of the 
human understanding for causality; " i. e. the athe- 
istic understanding. In other words, he virtually 
confesses that he is compelled to set up a hypothesis 
that has not one fact to sustain it, in order to escape 
the dire alternative of believing — to use his own 
language — in a " supernatural miracle.'' 

His logical attitude is this: he begs the question, 
to start with, by assuming to decide, confessedly 
without evidence, the very question in dispute ; and 
then offers as an excuse another assumption, also 
without evidence or reason, that is equally disputable 
and in dispute. That is to say, he assumes to decide 
the main question, offhand, by declaring spontaneous 
generation to be the origin of life ; and then attempts 
to clinch his first assumption by assuming any other 
theory to be gross superstition, in that it involves a 
" belief in a supernatural miracle." 

Logicians are tolerably familiar with the petitio 
principii, and have recognized several different 
qualities and degrees, such as the " direct " and the 
" indirect," the " disguised" and the " patent; " but 
this appears to belong to a new species. Its effi- 
ciency as a polemical weapon consists in the fact 
that the second assumption refers back to the first, 
and is held in terrorem over the heads of those who 
do not admit the first to be true. 

I repeat, therefore, that the two vital questions at 
issue between atheistic and theistic evolutionists are 



288 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

the ones that Professor Haeckel has thus summarily 
decided. 

The first is, What is the origin of mind and organic 
life? Did they originate by spontaneous generation, 
or are they a divine heritage ? 

The second is, If we find evidence of their divine 
origin, does that involve a belief in a miracle? 

And these are the questions which we will now 
proceed to discuss. 



CHAPTER V. 

NATURAL LAW VS. "SUPERNATURAL MIRACLE." 

One of the Atheistic Strongholds. — Words and Phrases supposed 
to be Contumelious. — A Method of Compelling the Accep- 
tance of " Scientific " Absurdities. — Potential Scare-Words, e. g. 
Haeckel's " Supernatural Miracle." — His Estimate of Deific 
Limitations. — The Question raised. — Is a Miracle Necessary 
to escape Spontaneous Generation ? — Miracle defined. — Facts 
of Evolution exclude Miracle. — Everything happens in Regular 
Order, therefore not Miraculous. — To suppose Miracle to be 
Necessary is to prescribe Limitations to Divine Intelligence. — 
The Established Order of Nature the Antithesis of Miracle. — 
Beginning of Life necessarily in the Established Order. — Genera- 
tion of Mind from Inorganic Matter would require a Miracle. — 
We must assume Natural Law to prevail. 

ONE of the strongholds of the atheistic fraternity, 
considered as a proselyting agency, consists 
in their ability and their propensity to fright the 
souls of fearful adversaries by the employment of 
certain stock words and phrases. Experience has 
taught them that there is a very large and growing 
class of people who desire above all things to be 
considered " scientific. " They have also discovered 
that this class can be stampeded into a belief in 
almost any kind of absurdity if it bears a " scientific " 
label, or if they are told that it is " unscientific " 
to believe otherwise. " Superstition " and " super- 
natural " are also very potent scare-words, and 
many a poor, timid, would-be scientist has been 
driven to cover by being told that if he believes in 

19 



2gO THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN 

God he is superstitious ; and that if he presumes to 
believe in an intelligent antecedent cause of the phe- 
nomena of mind, he is a believer in the " super- 
natural." " Miracle " is another word of wonderful 
potency in the vocabulary of atheistic proselytism ; 
and when it is reinforced by prefixing the word 
" supernatural,'* it is expected to be well-nigh 
irresistible. 

Hence it was that Professor Haeckel did not neg- 
lect to close his so-called argument for spontaneous 
generation with the usual formula, which, reduced to 
its simplest terms, is this: " If you don't believe in 
spontaneous generation, you have got to believe in a 
supernatural miracle." 

This, of course, is equivalent to a declaration that, 
even supposing an intelligent Deity to exist, he could 
not be the cause of the phenomena of life without 
violating or transcending a law of nature. To say 
that this is another of the pure assumptions of 
atheism, is putting it in the mildest possible terms. 
This, again, is the very question at issue between 
the atheistic and the theistic evolutionist: Is it 
necessary to presuppose a " supernatural miracle " 
as the only alternative to a belief in spontaneous 
generation? 

In order to answer that question, we must first 
define the word " miracle." Webster's definition is, 
" An event or effect contrary to the established con- 
stitution and course of things, or a deviation from 
the known laws of nature; a supernatural event." 

The definition of the Standard Dictionary is as 
follows: " 2. TheoL An event in the natural world, 
but out of its established order, and possible only by 



NATURAL LAW vs. MIRACLE. 29 1 

the intervention and exertion of divine power; a 
supernatural event." 

Now, postulating, for the time being, the existence 
of an intelligent Deity, a Great First Cause of all 
things, what would it be necessary to prove in order 
to bring the phenomena of life, as shown in the 
monera, within the domain of the supernatural ? 

Three things are necessary, namely : — 

1. It must be shown that those phenomena are 
" events in the natural world." 

2. That they are " out of the established order." 

3. That they were " possible only by the inter- 
vention and exertion of divine power." 

It will be seen at a glance that but one of the con- 
ditions is fulfilled; namely, the beginning of life, as 
shown in the moneron, was " an event in the natural 
world." But it would be difficult to show that it was 
" out of the established order." Indeed, it would be 
difficult to show that the beginning of anything was 
out of the established order. This alone takes the 
event out of the category of miracle, no matter what 
the theory of causation may be ; for if there is any 
event in any series that is, ex necessitate y in its estab- 
lished order, it is the initial event. 

Again, it would be found quite difficult to show 
that, under the theistic hypothesis, the beginning of 
life was " possible only by the intervention and exer- 
tion of divine power." 

" Intervention " means " the act of intervening or 
coming between ; the state of being interposed ; in- 
terposition." x The " intervention " and " exertion 
of divine power" in endowing the moneron with 

1 Standard Dictionary. 



292 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

organic life, would therefore be a special act of 
creation ; and, in order to show that it was miracu- 
lous, it must be shown that it was possible only by 
an act of special creation, " out of the established 
order." In other words, it would be necessary to 
show that divine power is unequal to the task of 
establishing a law of evolutionary development, in 
pursuance of which organic life could have a begin- 
ning or a progressive development without the neces- 
sity of an occasional miracle to correct that wherein 
the original plan was defective. 

It will thus be seen that the element of miracle, or 
special creation, is necessarily absent: first, because 
the beginning of life could not have been " out of 
the established order ; " secondly, because a miracle 
within the established order of nature is a contra- 
diction in terms ; and, thirdly, because the alleged 
necessity for a miracle implies a being of deficient 
intelligence and limited powers. 

The established order of development is the very 
antithesis of miracle ; and the latter can be assumed 
only when it is shown that something has been 
created out of that order. For instance, if it could 
be shown that a marsupial or a monkey or an 
agnostic was created first or out of its order, a 
miracle might be posited and its wisdom questioned. 
But the natural, or established, order of development 
proclaims the reign of intelligence and law. 

The position of the atheistic evolutionist may 
therefore be restated as follows : — 

Organic life, mind, and intelligence, with all their 
implications and potentialities, were spontaneously 
generated from inorganic matter ; or else they were 



NATURAL LAW vs. MLR A CLE. 293 

specially created by a being of inferior intelligence 
and limited powers, by means of a " supernatural 
miracle." 

I have already shown that the agnostics are con- 
fessedly without facts that point in the direction of 
spontaneous generation ; and that they are confessedly 
compelled by necessity to assume that hypothe- 
sis as the only logical avenue of escape from the 
acknowledgment of the existence of an intelligent 
cause of the phenomena of life and mind. But, by 
what logical right they assume that an intelligent 
cause of those phenomena is necessarily a being of 
limited intelligence, does not appear from their 
writings. We must therefore infer that that con- 
clusion is also a pure assumption, and one that is 
unrelieved by the mitigating excuse of necessity. 

There is, in fact, no more logical necessity for sup- 
posing a miracle to be necessary in order to endow 
protoplasm with life and mind under the theistic 
hypothesis, than there is for classing spontaneous 
generation as a supernatural process. Nor as much ; 
for the latter would be an event clearly " out of the 
natural order," so far as man is able to judge from 
any facts in his possession. That is to say, we know 
of no facts which give us a right to suppose that or- 
ganic life and mind can have their origin in inorganic 
matter. But the universe is full of evidence that 
mind is only acquired by inheritance from an ante- 
cedent mind endowed with attributes and powers 
identical in kind with those inherited. We also know 
that there is no miracle in inheritance. And we 
have every right to suppose, judging by all the facts 
in our possession, that there is no antecedent mind 



294 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN 

in inorganic matter from which the mental organism 
of the moneron could have been inherited. 

There is, therefore, no a priori reason for positing 
a miracle on the assumption of an antecedent mind 
force or energy in the universe from which the mone- 
ron derived its peculiar powers. On the contrary, 
we must suppose that the advent of mind upon this 
planet was in pursuance of a natural law, at least 
until evidence to the contrary is found of sufficient 
weight to destroy our confidence in the constancy of 
nature. In the ensuing chapters of this book we 
will institute a quest for that law, " if haply we may 
feel after it, and find it," though, literally, " it is not 
far from each one of us." 



CHAPTER VI. 

THE ARGUMENT FROM HEREDITY. 

Facts drawn from the History of Organic Evolution. — The Doctrine 
of Heredity. — Its Biological Definition. — The Authority of 
Darwin, Huxley, and Haeckel.— The Common Ground upon 
which Atheism and Theism can stand. — The Acknowledged 
Facts of Heredity. — The Necessary Presumptions. — Something 
to inherit. — Something from which to inherit. — The Character 
of the Inheritance. — Must exist actually or potentially in the 
Ancestor. — May differ in Degree, but not in Kind. — Man 
inherits from his Lower Ancestry back to the Moneron. — 
Whence the Intelligence of the Moneron ? — The Law of Hered- 
ity presupposes an Ancestor. — Atheism says, "This is an 
Exception to the General Law." — Theism replies that Laws of 
Nature do not admit of Exceptions. — The Issue systematically 
examined. — The Necessity of going back to the Beginning of 
Organic Life. — (i) The Issue: Spontaneous Generation or 
Inheritance. — (2) The Facts agreed upon : (a) Potentials of 
Manhood in the Moneron — (b) Faculties acquired only by In- 
heritance — (c) Antecedent Intelligence presupposed — (d) Fail- 
ure of Experimental Attempts to generate Life from Inorganic 
Matter — (e) Monera Destitute of Structural Organism — 
(f) Nevertheless endowed with a Mind — (g) Developed into a 
Structural Organism — (h) Moneron's Mind antedated its Physi- 
cal Organism. — 3. What Facts support Theory of Spontaneous 
Generation ? — Confessedly all Facts are against it. — Experi- 
mental Failures. — Quality of Evidence considered. — Negative 
Evidence not the Best. — But a Hypothesis without one Fact to 
support it is a Logical Absurdity. — Hypothesis Valid only when 
sustained by all Facts. — Otherwise no Constancy in Nature. — 
Atheistic Hypothesis Unique. — Has no Parallel in Bald, Unrea- 
soning Assumption. — Reasons for Atheist's Attitude. — Doctrine 
of Evolution disproved Theory of Special Creations. — Hence 



296 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

he "said in his Heart, There is no God. " — Hence Necessity for 
inventing a Hypothesis. — Paralleled only by that of Topsy. — 
Haeckel's Statement of the Issue. — Spontaneous Generation or 
" Supernatural Miracle." — Equivalent to Spontaneous Generation 
or Divine Agency. — The Latter the Real Issue. — No Other 
Possible. — One is True and the Other False. — Logical Condi- 
tions considered. — Facts in Support of Hereditary Hypothesis 
next in Order. 

HAVING failed to find either facts, phenomena, 
or valid reasons for the assumptions of athe- 
ism in regard to the origin of life, let us briefly 
examine the question from the theistic point of view, 
and see what facts there are to sustain the belief that 
the stream of life and mind has a source higher than 
the insensate earth. 

In making this inquiry I shall continue to be 
guided by facts as they appear in the history of 
evolution, and I shall draw upon the same sources of 
information that I have thus far drawn upon, namely, 
the great masters of biological science. I shall also 
be guided very largely by their general conclusions. 
In fact, I shall carry those conclusions further than 
they have carried them. But I shall not deviate from 
the line of direction which they have indicated. 

The particular doctrine to which I shall first invite 
attention is that of heredity. Heredity, in a gen- 
eral sense, is defined as the transmission of physical 
or mental peculiarities, qualities, etc., from parent to 
offspring. In the biological sense, it is defined as 
" the tendency manifested by one organism to de- 
velop in the likeness of a progenitor." * 

These are general definitions with which everybody 
is familiar. The doctrine as applied to biogeny, 

1 Standard Dictionary. 



THE ARGUMENT FROM HEREDITY. 297 

however, requires a more specific statement. In the 
language of Darwin, it is " that all the innumerable 
species, genera, and families of organic beings with 
which the world is peopled have all descended, each 
within its own class or group, from common parents." 2 

And, in view of the facts of geology, it follows that 
all living plants and animals " are the lineal descen- 
dants of those which lived long before the Silurian 
epoch. " 2 

" It is an obvious consequence of this theory of 
descent," says Huxley, ". . . that all plants and 
animals, however different they may now be, must, 
at one time or other, have been connected by direct 
or indirect intermediate gradations, and that the ap- 
pearance of isolation presented by various groups of 
organic beings must be unreal." 3 

More specifically still, Professor Haeckel, as we have 
already seen, emphasizes the doctrine of heredity, 
and traces the line of descent back, through twenty- 
two gradients, from man to the monera. 4 That 
Haeckel is a standard authority among atheistic evo- 
lutionists is a matter of current knowledge among 
scientific men everywhere. Darwin himself takes 
particular pains to indorse his views in general and 
in particular. Speaking of one of Professor Haeckel's 
works on the genealogy of man, Mr. Darwin has 
this to say : — 

" If this work had appeared before my essay had been 
written, I should probably never have completed it. Al- 

1 Origin of Species, ed. i. p. 457. 

2 Op. cit. p. 458. 

3 Darwiniana, p. 233. 

4 See " The Evolution of Man.' 



298 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

most all the conclusions at which I have arrived I find con- 
firmed by this naturalist, whose knowledge on many points 
is much fuller than mine." * 

It will thus be seen that if there is any one point 
upon which the master minds of biogenetic science 
are in complete harmony, it is in subscribing to the 
proposition that man inherited his faculties from the 
lower animals, beginning with the lowest form of 
animal life, — the monera. A corollary of this, to 
which they all subscribe, is that the potentialities 
of manhood reside in the lowest form of animal 
life. 

Now, it is not too much to say that this conclusion 
is the most important result of the study of the facts 
of organic evolution. From every point of view it 
is the grand result; for everything else of importance 
is included, and atheistic and theistic evolutionists 
can meet on this common ground, not of belief, but 
of knowledge. It matters not how devious or diver- 
gent the paths by which they have reached the goal, 
science and religion have at last found a basis of at 
least temporary reconciliation. 

It is obvious that it must have been a potent 
agency that was capable of bringing atheism and 
theism into harmonious relations. That agency could 
have been nothing less potent than truth. And the 
process by which that truth was reached was that of 
inductive reasoning, — reasoning from the observable 
facts and phenomena of nature. 

It was thus that atheism and theism alike dis- 
covered that there is not one fact in nature that 

1 Descent of Man, Introduction, p. 3 



THE ARGUMENT FROM HEREDITY. 299 

points to any other possible means of acquiring 
mental faculties than that of inheritance. 

Now, let us see what is necessarily presupposed in 
the doctrine of heredity. 

First, then, it presupposes something to inherit; 
and secondly, it presupposes an ancestor from which 
that something is inherited. Obviously nothing can 
be inherited that does not exist, actually or po- 
tentially; and nothing can be inherited unless there 
is an existent entity from which to derive the inher- 
itance. These are self-evident propositions ; and 
they may be reduced to one fundamental proposition 
as follows : — 

An inherited faculty presupposes an antecedent en- 
tity endowed with a mind in which the identical 
faculty actually or potentially exists. 

The faculty may be different in degree, but not in 
kind. It may be greater or smaller, as phenomenally 
manifested in the offspring, than it was in the parent; 
but it must be identical in kind. Thus, a child may 
exhibit wonderful faculties in which the parent may 
seem totally deficient ; but it is self-evident that the 
same faculties existed potentially in the parent. On 
the other hand, the parent may have faculties largely 
developed in which the child may seem totally defi- 
cient; but that they exist potentially in the child 
is a proposition that no sane person can or will 
gainsay. 

These are elementary principles in the doctrine of 
heredity; and that they apply with equal force to 
the phylogenetic series, from the moneron to man, 
is the elementary proposition of the theory of evolu- 
tion. Eliminate them from the doctrine of evolution, 



300 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

and the whole fabric falls to pieces of its own weight. 
If the doctrine of heredity fails, then fails the whole 
theory of progressive development of animal life, 
and the world is again plunged into the dark and 
dismal realms of superstition. 

Now, let us apply the doctrine of heredity to the 
solution of the question of the origin of life. In 
other words, let us carry the principle of heredity to 
its legitimate conclusion. In doing so, we will bear 
in mind the promise not to deviate one hair's breadth 
from the line of direction which atheism has indicated 
as the one leading to ultimate truth, that is, to the 
ultimate solution of the problem of the origin of life 
and mind on this planet. 

Beginning with man, therefore, and going back 
through the phylogenetic series to the moneron, 
atheism and theism will travel along harmoniously 
together, each subscribing to the propositions (i) 
that all faculties of mind are acquired by inher- 
itance, and (2) that an inherited faculty presup- 
poses an antecedent entity endowed with a mind in 
which the identical faculty actually or potentially 
exists. 

When the moneron is reached, however, the atheist 
pauses, and protests against going any further in that 
particular direction. He has discovered what no 
scientist has ever found before, and what none but 
an atheistic scientist is capable of discovering, namely, 
an exception to a law of nature. The law of heredity 
is no longer suited to his purpose. It works the 
wrong way. Its implications are no longer atheistic ; 
and he abandons it forever. 

The theistic evolutionist, on the other hand, finds 



THE ARGUMENT FROM HEREDITY. 301 

in the moneron no exception to any law of nature 
with which he is acquainted. On the contrary, he 
finds in that little animal confirmation strong as 
proofs of Holy Writ that the law of heredity holds as 
good at the beginning of organic life as it does at 
every subsequent stage. That is to say, he sees the 
same necessity for the presupposition of a mind 
antecedent to the moneron, — a mind endowed with 
the same attributes and powers, differing only in 
degree, that he finds inherent in that lowest form of 
animal life. 

Now, let us examine a little more systematically 
the logical attitude, respectively, of the atheistic and 
the theistic evolutionist, in regard to this the most 
important question raised by the facts of organic 
evolution. 

It must be remembered, to begin with, that each of 
the two contending parties professes to be conducting 
the examination by the process of induction. Each 
professes to ignore all speculative philosophy bearing 
upon the subject, and to be guided solely by the 
facts and observable phenomena. And each has 
recognized the fact that it is at the very beginning of 
organic life in this world that we must find, if any- 
where, tangible evidences as to its origin. This is in 
accordance with the elementary principle of all pro- 
cesses of rational investigation. It is recognized by 
every true scientist who seeks to interpret correctly 
the laws of nature. It is recognized by every lawyer 
who seeks to interpret the statutes of his country. 
Blackstone lays particular stress upon this principle 
as the only infallible guide to the correct interpreta- 
tion of ambiguous statutes. " If the words are am- 



302 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

biguous," says this greatest of English law writers 
(I quote from memory), " examine the context/' and 
then the " subject-matter." If it is still ambiguous, 
consider the " reason and spirit of the law." In 
doing the latter, he lays down this simple rule: 
Consider " the old law, the mischief, and the remedy." 
That is to say, first find what the old law was; 
secondly, what was the " mischief" or evil in the old 
law that required a remedy ; and, thirdly, what was 
the remedy devised by the new law. In other words, 
we must go back to the very beginning if we would 
find facts that will enable us to interpret correctly a 
law either of God or of man. It is this principle that 
every true lawyer applies to the whole system of 
jurisprudence under which he practises. It is this 
principle that every true scientist applies to the 
investigation of every problem of nature. It is this 
principle that I have sought to apply to the investi- 
gation of the question, What is the origin of life on 
this planet? 

I repeat, therefore, that if there are existent facts 
that bear directly upon the question of the origin of 
life, we must look for them at the beginning of life. 

We will now group the facts and arguments bearing 
upon this question in the following order: (i) The 
issue between atheism and theism; (2) The facts 
agreed upon ; (3) The facts in support of atheism ; 
(4) The facts in support of theism. 

The issue between the atheistic and the theistic 
evolutionist is this: the former holds that life and 
mind originated by spontaneous generation from inor- 
ganic matter; the latter holds that life and mind were 
acquired by inheritance from an omniscient mind. 



THE ARGUMENT FROM HEREDITY. 303 

The facts and principles tacitly agreed upon by 
both parties are substantially the following : — 

First, that in the mind of the moneron reside the 
potentialities of the mental faculties of manhood. 

Secondly, that in the phylogenetic history of 
organic life there is no instance of the acquisition of 
mental faculties in any other way than by inheritance. 

Thirdly, that an inherited faculty necessarily pre- 
supposes an antecedent intelligence identical in kind. 

Fourthly, that all experimental attempts to generate 
organic life from inorganic compounds have utterly 
failed. 

Fifthly, that the moneron consists of a mass of 
absolutely undifferentiated, structureless plasson or 
primitive slime. 

Sixthly, that it is, nevertheless, endowed with a 
mind organism, and that it performs all the functions 
and exhibits all the essential phenomena of organic 
life, namely, sensation, movement, nutrition, and 
reproduction ; all this being antecedent to, and inde- 
pendent of, reason, experience, or instruction. 

Seventhly, that this mental energy thus resident 
within the moneron is the power which caused its 
own development from an undifferentiated mass of 
plasson to the differentiated or nucleated amoeba ; thus 
taking the first forward step in the process of organic 
evolution. 

Eighthly, that the mind of the moneron antedated 
its physical organism, and was, as a rratter of fact, 
the antecedent cause of physical organism. 

These are facts which will not be denied by either 
atheist or theist. They are either specifically or 
tacitly affirmed by both; and they are essential to 



304 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN 

both, paradoxical as it may seem. They are essential 
to the atheistic evolutionist because they are essential 
to the general hypothesis of evolution. They are 
essential to the theistic evolutionist for the same 
reason, and also because they are essential to the 
hypothesis of theism. 

It is now in order to inquire what facts there are 
to sustain the theory of spontaneous generation. 
The reader has already anticipated the answer. 
There is not one fact that points in that direction. 
This I have hereinbefore pointed out and empha- 
sized by quotations from Professor Haeckel's works, 
in which he confesses that the theory cannot be 
verified, but consoles himself by the declaration 
that it cannot be disproved. All experimental fail- 
ures to develop or generate organic life from inor- 
ganic matter count for nothing in his mind. Candor 
compels the admission that it is not the best quality 
of evidence. It is always difficult and often impos- 
sible to prove a negative. But it must also be re- 
membered that, logically, no one is bound to prove 
a negative until the side holding the affirmative has 
made at least a prima facie case. In this instance 
not only has this not been done, but, confessedly, it 
cannot be done. 

The evidence for spontaneous generation, there- 
fore, may be set down as absolutely less than no 
evidence at all ; for the only facts bearing upon the 
case are against the hypothesis. I submit, therefore, 
that, considered as a scientific conclusion based 
upon inductive processes of reasoning, the hypothesis 
of spontaneous generation is simply a logical ab- 
surdity. Induction presupposes at least one fact 



THE ARGUMENT FROM HEREDITY. 305 

pointing in the direction indicated by the hypothet- 
ical conclusion. 

Moreover, an axiom recognized by every logician 
and by every scientist worthy of the name, is that, if 
a hypotliesis is not sustained by all the facts bearing 
upon the question, it is necessarily wrong. This axiom 
is founded upon two fundamental truths: namely, 
(1) that no fact in all this universe is inconsistent 
with any other fact; and (2) there are no excep- 
tional cases in the operation of nature's laws. These 
may all be condensed into that most fundamental 
and important of all scientific truths, namely, that 
which is affirmative of the constancy of nature. 

The hypothesis of spontaneous generation is, 
therefore, in absolute and unqualified derogation of 
each and all of these fundamental axioms. Consid- 
ered, therefore, as a proposition emanating from a 
body of scientists who are constantly proclaiming 
their devotion to the principles of induction, it must 
be considered unique, to say the least ; for, if it has 
ever been paralleled for bald assumption without the 
shadow of a shade of evidence, history has not re- 
corded the fact. 

Now, there must have existed some overwhelming 
logical necessity for such a flagrant violation of all 
the principles that are supposed to prevail in the 
scientific investigation of the phenomena of nature. 
It will be recalled that Professor Haeckel confessed 
that the hypothesis of spontaneous generation was a 
mere assumption, and that it was prompted by neces- 
sity. A few words will explain this necessity, and 
how it arose. 

It will be remembered that, when the doctrine of 
20 



306 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN 

organic evolution was first promulgated, it was re- 
garded as an atheistic science. It was natural that 
it should be so regarded, since it was promulgated 
by atheists ; but especially for the reason that the 
theory substituted progressive development for the 
old doctrine of special creations of genera and species 
in the organic world. Having succeeded in dis- 
proving the latter doctrine, the atheistic scientists 
imagined that they had " eliminated God from the 
universe/' That is to say, having discovered prox- 
imate causes {causa efficient es) for a great many 
phenomena which had before been supposed to be 
due to miraculous intervention, they jumped to the 
conclusion that there was no necessity for final or 
purposive causes {causce finales) for anything. Hence 
they determined either to find a " mechanical cause " 
(Haeckel) for every phenomenon or invent one out 
of hand. Heredity served their purpose admirably 
until they reached the very beginning of animal life. 
Here was the crucial point, here the parting of the 
ways. If they carried the doctrine of heredity to its 
legitimate conclusion, it presupposed an intelligence 
antecedent to the monera ; and that intelligence, of 
course, could be none other than that of omniscience. 
But as that did not comport with their predetermined 
atheism, they had no other resource but to invent. 
And so they invented. They invented a theory of 
the origin of life and mind on this planet. The in- 
vention may have been original with them, but it was 
not new ; for it had been exactly paralleled by the 
late lamented Topsy. 

The most important part of Professor Haeckel's 
remarks on this subject consists of the confession 



THE ARGUMENT FROM HEREDITY. 307 

which he inadvertently makes when he sets forth the 
dire consequences of refusing to accept the theory 
of spontaneous generation. He who does not accept 
that theory " has no other resource but to believe in 
a supernatural miracle," are the portentous words of 
the great atheist. 

Considered as an atheistic proselyting agency 
among the feeble-minded, these words are potent, 
as I have already shown. 

Considered as a statement of fact, they are untrue, 
as I have hereinbefore pointed out; for a miracle 
cannot be predicated of an event occurring in its 
natural order. 

But, considered as a scientific declaration of the 
narrow limits of the field of inquiry for causation, 
they are profoundly significant. 

It is equivalent to saying, "There are but two 
possible theories of causation, — one is spontaneous 
generation, and the other is divine agency." 

The value of this declaration consists in its 
obvious and undeniable truth. The ingenuity of 
man is not equal to the formulation of any other 
rational hypothesis to account for the origin of life 
on this planet. One of these hypotheses is true, 
and the other is false. There is, and there can be, 
no middle ground. Either positively excludes the 
other; for they are antithetical. 

This declaration by Professor Haeckel is the 
exact equivalent, in its implications, of what I have 
been contending for all along. It is a declaration 
that if the question of theism or anti-theism is ever 
to be settled by induction, it must be done at this 
point, — the beginning of organic life. In the mean 



308 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN, 

time, or until the question is settled at this point, 
all other questions pertaining to the subject-matter 
are purely subsidiary, incidental, and speculative. 

I must not, however, be understood as admitting 
that, even if it could be demonstrated that organic 
life could be generated from inorganic compounds, 
the existence of an intelligent Great First Cause of 
all things would thereby be disproved. On the con- 
trary, the old arguments for the existence of such a 
Deity would not be diminished in value in the least. 
It would simply be putting that question one step 
farther back, but otherwise leaving it just where it 
was found, — in the domain of speculative philos- 
ophy. On the other hand, if an inductive examina- 
tion of the question reveals the Great First Cause 
in the lowest form of animal life, that is to say, if 
the facts admit of no other possible interpretation, 
then every teleological argument that has ever been 
made is invested with a scientific value and sig- 
nificance that it never before possessed. 

In the mean time I am not unaware of one logical 
advantage possessed by the other side in the discus- 
sion of this question. I am fully impressed with 
the value of the scientific axiom that "we have 
neither occasion nor logical right to ascribe any 
phenomenon to supermundane agency so long as it 
can be explained under principles of natural law 
with which we are acquainted. " 

In my former works 1 I have strenuously insisted 
upon the never-failing value of this axiom; and I 
have taken occasion to apply it to the phenomena of 

1 See " The Law of Psychic Phenomena " and " A Scientific 
Demonstration of the Future Life." 



THE ARGUMENT FROM HEREDITY. 309 

so-called spiritism. And I have undertaken to show 
that the fatal weakness of spiritism consists in the 
fact that all its phenomena are easily explicable 
under natural laws, the existence of which the 
spiritists do not themselves deny. 

I just as strenuously insist upon the application 
of this rule to the subject under present considera- 
tion. But I also claim the right to trace to a super- 
mundane source any phenomena that admittedly 
cannot be explained by reference to any known law ; 
and, a fortiori, I claim that right in cases where all 
the known facts conspire to disprove the only pos- 
sible hypothesis under which the necessity for a 
supermundane explanation could be avoided. 

I admit that it requires a very strong array of 
reasons to justify a scientist in seeking in super- 
mundane realms for an explanation of phenomena in 
the organic world. But it demands still stronger 
reasons to justify him in ignoring facts, belittling 
their importance, or misrepresenting their signifi- 
cance, when conducting an inductive inquiry. Still 
stronger reasons are required to justify a scientist 
in postulating a theory of causation that is destitute 
of either fact or reason to support it; and nothing 
can justify him in belittling the intelligence of 
possible opponents by charging them in advance 
with gross superstition. 

Having now definitely ascertained that there are 
neither facts nor reasons to sustain the theory of 
spontaneous generation, let us next in order inquire 
what facts there are to warrant the acceptance of 
the hypothesis of hereditary transmission from an 
antecedent mind. 



CHAPTER VII. 

THE ARGUMENT FROM HEREDITY (CONTINUED). 

The Character of the Heritage. — If essentially Divine, it is Pre- 
sumptive Evidence of Divine Origin, — If no other Source is 
Possible, the Evidence is Conclusive. — No other Possible Source 
has been shown. — Examination of Facts showing Divine Attri- 
butes in the Moneron. — They are the Elementary Facts of 
Evolution. — They demonstrate Intuitive Knowledge of Laws of 
its Being. — Explanations on other Grounds Pure Assumptions. — 
Begging the Question. — Knowledge measured by Actions. — 
Adaptation of Means to Ends the Test of Intelligence. — Attributes 
summed up. — Intuition. — Antecedent to Organism. — Has Power 
over Unorganized Matter. — Creative Power. — Creates New 
Species. — Transmits by Inheritance. — Dominant Instinct Crea- 
tive. — Dominant Emotion Altruistic. — Potentially Divine. — All 
Essential Attributes of the God of Christian Faith. — Differing 
only in Degree. — Knowledge, Power, Love. — Whence came 
they ? — The Question for Inductive Science. — Science knows of 
but One Way of acquiring Faculties, — Inheritance. — By Analy- 
sis of Faculties it learns the Character of Ancestry, and can 
predict Character of Posterity. — No Exceptions to Nature's 
Laws. — Divine Faculties necessarily a Divine Heritage. — 
Atheistic Objections. — " Supernatural Miracle." — Objection In- 
valid. — Miracle cannot be posited on Intelligence. — Natural 
Law always presumed. — Electric Phenomena originated in 
Cosmic Electrical Energy. — Mind originated in Cosmic Mind 
Energy. — Atheistic Theory a Recrudescence of Fetichism. — 
Mind in Inanimate Matter, e. g. — No Disrespect to Fetich Wor- 
shipper. — Lodestone does not generate Magnetism. — Proto- 
plasm does not generate Mind. — Each Substance is a Medium 
of Manifestation of a Cosmic Energy. — Can One Mind be 
produced from Another ? — Reproduction an Example. — Re- 
production by Fission Demonstrative. — The Monera indefinitely 
Divisible. — Each Particle a Distinct Mind Organism. — Repro- 
duction a Mental Act. — Inferences as to Divine Methods. — The 
Mind of each Sentient Creature a Part of the Divine Mind. — 
Logical Rules of Investigation. — The Law of Parsimony. — 



THE ARGUMENT FROM HEREDITY. 311 

All violated by Atheism. — Truth does not necessitate a Violation 
of Logical Principles. — All Essential Truth may be known 
by Inductive Investigation. — Application of Rules. — Logical 
Axioms: (1) No Effect without a Cause; (2) Cause always 
Commensurable with Effect. — They are " Universal Postu- 
lates." — We may therefore always know the Nature of a Cause 
by observing its Effects. — Nature never erects False Signals. — 
Under this Law we know that the Cause of Mind is Mind. — 
Under the Law of Heredity we know its Attributes, — that it is 
an Organized, Conscious Intelligence, a Personality, a Creative 
Intelligence, a Constant Energy, Omniscient, Omnipotent, Altru- 
istic. — No other Hypothesis accounts for All the Facts. — If 
Nature is Constant, we know that God is our Father. 

THE presentation of the facts and phenomena 
which confirm the theory of divine inherit- 
ance of mental attributes will necessarily involve 
more or less of recapitulation of what has been 
already mentioned. But at that risk I deem it 
desirable so to group the facts as to give the reader 
a perspective view of the whole. 

The first fact to be considered is the character of 
the heritage. This is of the first importance; for its 
evidential value must be measured by its character. 
That is to say, the quality of the thing possessed, 
and alleged to be an inheritance from a given ances- 
tor, must be identical with that known or presumed 
to belong to said ancestor. Otherwise no presump- 
tion could arise from the character of the thing pos- 
sessed in favor of the verity of the allegation. If, 
however, it is found to be identical with that known 
to belong to the alleged ancestor, the presumption 
is strongly in favor of the truth of the allegation. 
And this presumption is converted into conclusive 
evidence when it is known that there is no other 
possible source from which such a heritage could be 
derived. Thus, if a divine ancestry is claimed, the 



312 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

inheritance must be shown to be in its essence 
divine. Otherwise the heritage in itself possesses 
no evidential value bearing upon the question of its 
origin. But if it can be shown to be divine in its 
essential characteristics, the presumption is in favor 
of the claim; and said presumption is greatly 
strengthened in the absence of evidence of any other 
possible source of inheritance. 

Thus, if the mind of the moneron is shown to be 
invested with the essential attributes of omniscience 
and omnipotence, differing only in degree and not 
in kind, the presumption is in favor of the theory of 
divine inheritance. And in the absence of evidence 
of any other possible source of inheritance, its 
mental attributes possess an evidential value of an 
order so high as to require conclusive evidence to 
the contrary to rebut the presumption. In the 
absence of such rebutting evidence, if it could be 
shown affirmatively that there is no other possible 
source of inheritance, the evidence in favor of divine 
inheritance would be conclusive. But as affirmative 
proof of a negative proposition is in any case diffi- 
cult to procure, and in this case quite impossible, 
we must rest content with the very high order of 
presumptive evidence which is ours in the absence 
of any evidence whatever to rebut the presumption. 

Fortunately, however, the claims of atheism are 
of such a character as to be equivalent to a very 
high order of evidence of their own falsity. When 
a party to a controversy sets up an allegation that is 
absurd on its face, and confesses that he has no 
proof whatever that it is true, it is equivalent to an 
admission that he has no case. Then, if it is also 



THE ARGUMENT FROM HEREDITY. 313 

shown that all the known facts tend to disprove his 
allegation, presumptive evidence on the other side 
is converted into the equivalent of conclusive 
evidence. 

And this is exactly the status of the controversy 
between theism and atheism over the question of the 
origin of life. A high order of presumptive evi- 
dence that life is a divine inheritance is met by 
the theory of spontaneous generation, — a hypothesis 
admittedly without a fact to sustain it, — an abandon- 
ment at once of the law of heredity and of the 
methods of induction; a reckless leap into the 
cloudy realms of speculative philosophy, sans 
reason, sans probability, sans truth, sans every- 
thing save an insensate determination to avoid the 
obvious truth that the phenomena of intelligence 
must have an intelligent origin. 

There is, for the agnostics, one way of temporary 
escape from their logical dilemma. That is to say, 
there is one way by which they could retain a tem- 
porary hold upon the law of heredity; and that is by 
affirming that mind exists in the rocks and mud at 
the bottom of the ocean. This would give to the 
monera an earthly ancestor, endowed, of course, with 
the same quality of mind, — the same potentials. 
But even this would only serve to put the real ques- 
tion one step farther back; for if it could be demon- 
strated that every atom of matter composing this 
earth is endowed with a mind, the question of that 
mind's origin would still remain just as it is now, 
and the same arguments would hold good. 

But I prefer not to lead them into the mire and 
mud of speculation without facts further than they 



3 H THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

have chosen to go. I prefer to remain upon the 
solid ground of truth as we find it, and laws as we 
know them. Facts are divine revelations. Specu- 
lative philosophy is guesswork. We know some- 
thing of the mind manifested in the monera; and we 
know something of the essentials of the law of 
heredity. But we know nothing of a mind existing 
in mud; and we know of no process of acquiring a 
mind except by inheritance. 

Now let us re-examine those faculties possessed 
by the moneron which proclaim its divine pedi- 
gree : — 

In the first place, it is admitted by all evolution- 
ists that it is invested with the potentialities of 
manhood. That is to say, it possesses in rudi- 
mentary form all the activities, mental and physical, 
to be found in man. " It transforms food into tissue 
and other metabolic products, and this is the basis 
of all the nutritive activities and processes of the 
higher animals. It can move parts of itself [pseu- 
dopodia] and is capable of locomotion, and this is 
the basis of all movement in the higher animals 
brought about by bones and muscles. It can feel a 
stimulus and respond, and this is the basis of the 
sensory faculties of the higher animals. It can 
reproduce itself by segmentation, and this is the 
basis of reproduction in the higher animals. On 
dividing it inherits the actual qualities of the parent 
mass, and this is the basis of heredity." 1 In short, 
it possesses the instinct of self-preservation, and 
this is the basis of all the self-regarding emotions 
and activities characteristic of man; and it pos- 

1 See Professor Gates in " Therapist," December, 1895. 



THE ARGUMENT FROM HEREDITY. 315 

sesses the instinct of reproduction, and this is the 
basis of all the altruistic, or other-regarding, emo- 
tions and activities that characterize the noblest 
manhood. 

No one will dispute these propositions; for they 
are the elementary facts in the history of organic 
evolution. Nor can any one successfully controvert 
the conclusion that the possession of these attributes 
demonstrates the proposition that the moneron is 
endowed with an intuitive knowledge of the essential 
laws of its being. It is no answer to this proposi- 
tion to say that its acts are "automatic," and there- 
fore without intelligence; for that is begging the 
question. Besides, it is a contradiction in terms to 
say that an intelligent action can be performed 
without intelligence. That its actions are prompted 
by intelligence is demonstrated by the fact that all 
its acts are adaptations of means to ends. Nor does 
it do to say that its actions are "unconscious/' for 
that, too, is begging the question. Again, it is a 
contradiction in terms to say that an intelligent 
adaptation of means to ends is an unconscious 
act. To say that it is reflex action, and therefore 
not conscious, is another way of begging the ques- 
tion; for reflex action itself is an adaptation of 
means to ends, as I have already pointed out. All 
these terms are pure inventions, apparently con- 
cocted either to conceal ignorance of the real sig- 
nificance of instinct, or to belittle that significance 
in the interest of materialism. In this, as in every 
subject of human investigation, one grain of fact, 
intelligently observed and interpreted without preju- 
dice, outweighs all the theories that were ever con- 



316 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN 

cocted for the sole purpose of evading the obvious 
significance of the phenomena. The only way to 
ascertain what a sentient creature knows is to 
observe what it does. If it acts intelligently, it 
must be presumed to be intelligent until the con- 
trary is demonstrated. If it observes the laws of its 
being and invariably acts in accordance therewith, 
it must be presumed to have a knowledge of those 
laws, even though materialistic science may fail to 
find the source of that knowledge in the material 
world. In short, if it acts just as an intelligent, 
conscious being ought to act, it must be presumed 
to be intelligent and conscious until the contrary is 
clearly proven. 

Applying these facts and principles to the monera, 
it will readily be seen, not only that the evolution- 
ists are warranted in their asseveration that it con- 
tains the potentials of manhood, but that I am 
justified in declaring that the mental attributes of 
the moneron cannot be adequately described except 
in terms that apply to omniscience and omnipotence. 

We may now sum up the attributes and powers of 
the mind of the moneron which are essentially and 
potentially divine, as follows: — 

i. It apprehends by intuition the essential laws 
of its being; that is to say, all essential truth per- 
taining to its state of existence, its stage of develop- 
ment, and its environment. 

2. It is antecedent to physical organism. 

3. It has power over unorganized matter. 

4. It has the power to create a physical organism 
out of unorganized matter. 

5. It has the power to create other mental organ- 



THE ARGUMENT FROM HEREDITY. 317 

isms, complete and individualized, out of its own 
mental organism, by a simple act of volition (repro- 
duction). 

6. It has the power to create new species (amoeba). 

7. It transmits by inheritance its essential char- 
acteristics and powers. 

8. Its dominant instinct is creative. 

9. Finally, its dominant emotion is essentially 
altruistic. 

Can the mind of man conceive of a finite, sentient 
creature, possessing in essential purity more god- 
like attributes than are here enumerated? 

By extension alone to infinity they correspond 
to the highest conceptions of God, — the God of 
Christian faith, — a God of infinite knowledge, a 
God of infinite power, a God of infinite love. 

Whence were these attributes and powers derived ? 
That is a question for science to answer; and we 
propose to submit the question to that august 
tribunal, stipulating only that it shall employ the 
inductive method of conducting the investigation, 
and that its decision shall be founded upon observ- 
able facts and known laws. The facts are before us, 
and no one disputes them. What of the laws? 

Science tells us that it has conducted an exhaus- 
tive investigation of facts, covering a period of a 
somewhat indefinite number of aeons, but extending 
from the monera to man, and that it has found that 
the law of heredity is universal. In other words, 
science knows of no law under which a faculty of 
mind can be acquired except that of heredity. It 
knows that innumerable facts exist bearing upon 
this question, and that they all conspire to demon- 



318 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN 

strate the universality of that law. Applying the 
infallible test of the validity of a law, — namely, the 
ability to make inerrant predictions under it, science 
avers that it can, by an analysis of the mental facul- 
ties of any sentient creature, predict with absolute 
certainty the quality and kind of mental faculties 
that its offspring will possess ; and that it can, with 
equal certainty, determine the character of the 
faculties possessed by its ancestor. If therefore 
there is an exception to this law of hereditary trans- 
mission of mental attributes, science knows nothing 
of it. That is to say, science has never yet discov- 
ered one fact in nature that hints of the existence of 
any means of acquiring mental faculties other than 
that of inheritance from an ancestral mind endowed 
with faculties identical in kind. 

Planting himself, therefore, upon the facts that 
are known to exist, and upon a law that is universal, 
and insisting upon the strict application of the 
processes of induction as being the only legitimate 
method of scientific inquiry, the theistic evolutionist 
declares that divine faculties are and can be nothing 
less than a divine heritage. 

Now let us inquire, What possible objection can 
science offer to this conclusion ? Practically but 
one objection has ever been offered; for all others 
are but varying forms of that one. Professor 
Haeckel has advanced it in its simplest, crudest, 
and most direct form. His objection is that its 
acceptance requires us to believe in a "supernatural 
miracle," — i.e., a special creation by "supernatural " 
means. This objection, if it had the slightest 
adumbration of truth in or about it, would be valid 



THE ARGUMENT FROM HEREDITY, 319 

and conclusive. For no true scientist can accept a 
hypothesis that involves a belief in a miracle, or in 
anything supernatural, much less a " supernatural 
miracle." The anti-theistic scientist does not 
believe that there is any God to perform a miracle; 
and the theistic scientist entertains too profound a 
reverence for God, a conception of his wisdom and 
power too exalted, to admit for one moment that 
his original plan of creation was so imperfect that 
it became necessary to supplement it by special 
creations or miracles. 

Is it necessary, then, to posit a miracle, or a 
special creation, on the basis of a belief in divine 
inheritance of mental faculties? Clearly not. It is 
only necessary to posit an intelligent origin for 
intelligence; a mental origin for mind; an intelli- 
gent creative energy, or a being endowed with 
intelligence and creative energy, as the progenitor 
of other intelligent beings who are endowed with 
the same powers. This is the natural order of 
things so far as scientific research has been able to 
inform mankind ; and the burden of proof rests upon 
the one who seeks to show that the same law did not 
prevail at the beginning of organic life. Being in 
the natural order of inheritance, the event itself 
must be presumed to have occurred within the 
domain of natural law. A miracle cannot be 
posited upon a showing of intelligence. 

It requires no greater strain upon the credulity of 
man to suppose a mental origin for mind than it does 
to suppose an electrical origin for electricity. We 
might just as reasonably deny that the electricity of 
the earth has its source in the electrical energy of 



320 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

the universe, as deny that the mental energy which 
we see manifested on this planet has its source in a 
universal mind. It would be just as reasonable to 
hold that electricity has its origin in its terrestrial 
non-conductors, as to hold that organic life and 
mind had their origin in inanimate, inorganic, insen- 
sate, terrestrial matter. Not that I would insinuate 
that the two suppositions are logical equivalents; 
for they are not. The electrical supposition would 
be simple lunacy. But the supposition that intelli- 
gence exists in stones and mud is the fundamental 
hypothesis of fetichism. I hasten to say that this 
last remark is not intended as a slur on the religion 
of the fetich worshiper. Far from it. It is in the 
nature of a vindication, for his theory is just as well 
fortified by facts as is that of the atheistic " scientist." 
Considered as inductive philosophies, therefore, they 
are entitled to equal consideration. In point of fact, 
the parallelism is about complete. Thus, (a) the 
two theories of the ultimate origin and source of 
life and mind meet in the same inanimate object 
(b) They are equally destitute of facts or of reason 
to support them, (c) The same facts of nature 
unite in protest against both theories. (d) The 
fetichist worships the inanimate object or substance in 
which the two theories locate life and mind, (e) The 
atheistic philosopher elevates his materialistic science 
into a fetich and worships that. Speaking, there- 
fore, with the careful precision of a definitive formula, 
it must be held that the atheistic theory of the origin 
of mind and life is a recrudescence of fetichism. 

To return to our electrical comparison, I repeat that 
it is just as reasonable to suppose that the mental 



THE ARGUMENT FROM HEREDITY. 32 1 

organisms of the monera are segregated parts of a 
universal mind as to suppose that the electricity 
which we find in the earth is a part of the electrical 
energy of the universe. Each is a form of energy, — 
a mode of motion, if you please. Each is universal 
and all-pervasive, so far as we are able to perceive. 
The universal electrical energy, not by means of a 
miracle, but in pursuance of a universal law, im- 
pinged upon this planet and found its sphere of local 
activity in the various substances best adapted to 
the purpose. In one substance it produces certain 
phenomena ; in other substances certain other phe- 
nomena. In some cases it appears to be entirely 
severed from all connection with the universal. 
It can be artificially detached and made to do work, 
as in an electrical machine or in a magnet. In the 
latter form we find that nature has stored it up in 
the lodestone or magnetic iron ore, etc. That it 
is separated only in appearance or in its visible 
effects, is quite probable. In other words, that it 
still maintains a connection with the universal elec- 
trical energy may be conceded. 

In like manner it may be supposed that the uni- 
versal energy which we call mind seizes upon the 
proper material of this earth, pervades it, and pro- 
duces its corresponding phenomena ; and in like man- 
ner we find that this energy apparently emanates 
from the universal energy. It is individualized in 
the moneron and its posterity, and apparently leads 
an independent life. I say " apparently," for it is 
not necessary to suppose that it has severed its con- 
nection with the universal mind, any more than it is 
necessary to suppose that the electrical energy of the 

21 



322 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN 

earth is dissociated from that of the whole universe. 
Nor is it necessary to posit a miracle in either case c 
On the contrary, the phenomena in each case pro 
claim a universal law, and reveal a universal, all- 
pervasive, omnipresent energy, — not inherent in 
matter, but immanent in the universe. In each case 
certain forms or compositions of matter are required 
as a basis for the phenomenal manifestation of its 
energy. That is all. In neither case does the 
medium generate the force or energy. Magnetic 
oxide of iron, or an iron bar, is a good medium for 
the manifestation of magnetic phenomena. But 
the magnet does not generate the force. That force 
comes from without, — from the great source of 
electrical energy, which is coextensive with the uni- 
verse. It is simply a form of electrical energy that 
finds a medium of manifestation in certain material 
compounds. 

Protoplasm is the physical medium through which 
mind manifests itself. In this sense it is " the 
physical basis of life," as Huxley terms it; but in no 
other. It does not generate mind. That, too, comes 
from without, — from an eternal source, — a constant, 
ever-present, all-pervasive force or energy that finds 
in protoplasm a medium through which the phenom- 
ena of life and mind may be manifested on this 
planet. 

Many will ask the question, " How can a mind 
be segregated from the Infinite mind so as to become 
an individualized independent entity?" Some will 
employ the usual atheistic formula for evading un- 
welcome conclusions, and cut the matter short by 
declaring that it is " unthinkable. " Others will look 



THE ARGUMENT FROM HEREDITY. 323 

wise, shake their heads, and declare that it is " incon- 
ceivable; " and, because no one can tell just how it 
is done, many will declare that it is " impossible." 

Obviously no one can tell how the Almighty does 
his wondrous work; and it is not a legitimate ques- 
tion to ask. The real question is, first, Can one mind 
be segregated from another and both become in- 
dividualized, independent entities? If the facts of 
nature answer this question in the affirmative, we may 
well suppose that the wisdom and power of God are 
equal to the task of doing his part of the work in 
his own way. The answer, then, is that the mind 
of every living creature on earth was derived from 
another mind. The act of reproduction by unicel- 
lular organisms is a tangible answer to that question ; 
for it can be witnessed at any time by any one who 
will take the trouble to look. The fission of the 
amoeba or of the moneron is an act by which one 
mind is segregated from another, each being and 
remaining intact; and as each in turn reproduces 
itself in the same manner, and so on indefinitely, it 
follows, as Weisman remarks, that the unicellular 
organism is " potentially immortal." And if Weis- 
man' s " germ-plasm " theory is correct, each living 
creature contains within itself a part of the original 
moneron from which it descended. This may also 
be true under the "gemmule" theory of Darwin and 
his followers. 

Be that as it may, the fact remains that the segre- 
gation of one mind from another, in both sexual and 
asexual reproduction, is one of the universal facts 
in nature. It is, indeed, the one essential fact in 
heredity. 



324 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

One further consideration should not be lost sight 
of, and that is that reproduction is largely, if not 
wholly, a mental act or function. Those who hold 
that physical organism generates mind will not admit 
this to be true so far as the higher animals are con- 
cerned. But no one can deny that it is true of the 
moneron ; for there is no physical organism in that 
creature to complicate the question. The mind that 
invests it acts wholly upon unorganized matter. The 
act of fission, therefore, was wholly due to mental 
energy. It was an act of volition prompted by an 
emotional impulse. And that impulse was the pri- 
mordial manifestation of the constant force or energy 
that lies at the bottom of all progressional develop- 
ment in the physical, mental, moral, and religious 
worlds. It was primordial altruism, — the first act of 
a sentient creature prompted wholly by the other- 
regarding impulse, — the first manifestation of love 
on this earth, the first tangible exemplification of 
mind's creative power. 

Again, a very important point to be noted is that 
the plasson which constitutes the monera presents 
a tangible exemplification of what must be true of 
the divine mind if it is true that the mind of each 
sentient creature is "a spark of the divine intelli- 
gence," — "a part of the mind of God." If that 
theory is true, it necessarily follows that the divine 
mind is infinitely divisible. It is a conception diffi- 
cult to grasp, and impossible to formulate in adequate 
finite terms; and yet it has been more or less 
vaguely entertained by every theist who believes in 
the Christian doctrine of the fatherhood of God or 
in the divinity of man. In the moneron, however, 



THE ARGUMENT FROM HEREDITY. 325 

we find a concrete example of the indefinite divisi- 
bility of mind. 

"The monera are/' says Haeckel, " homogeneous 
and structureless; each part of the body is every 
other part. Each part can absorb and digest nour- 
ishment; each part is excitable and sensitive; each 
part can move itself independently ; and, lastly, each 
part is capable of reproduction and regeneration." l 
Again he says : " The most remarkable of all monera 
is the Bathybius, which was discovered by Huxley 
in 1868. This wonderful moneron lives in the 
deepest parts of the sea, especially in the Atlantic 
Ocean, and in places covers the whole floor of the 
sea in such masses that the fine mud in the latter 
consists, in great measure, of living slime. The pro- 
toplasm in these formless nets does not seem differ- 
entiated at all ; each little piece is capable of forming 
an individual." 2 And, it may be added, it follows 
that u each little piece " may be still further divided, 
either artificially or by reproduction, and so on, 
indefinitely. 

Here, then, is a concrete fact, easily observable 
under the microscope, demonstrating not only that 
one mind can be segregated from another mind, but 
that mind is in itself indefinitely divisible. More- 
over, it reveals a law of mind energy which not only 
lies at the basis of all the subsequent phenomena of 
heredity and evolutionary development, but requires, 
as a necessary hypothesis, under the law of heredity, 
an antecedent mind energy identical in all essential 
characteristics. To use the language which Pro- 

1 The Evolution of Man, p. 48. 

2 Op. cit. pp. 48, 49. 



326 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN 

fessor Haeckel employed with such transparent in- 
genuousness in reference to the theory of spontaneous 
generation, " this assumption is required by the 
demand of the human understanding for causality." 
Or, to use the language of Professor Zoellner in 
reference to the same " spontaneous " theory, it is 
the " condition necessary to the conceivability of 
nature in accordance with the laws of causality.'' 1 

I submit that I have a right to employ these ex- 
pressions in reference to my theory, and that their 
authors have not that right with reference to the 
theory of spontaneous generation. The " demand 
of the human understanding for causality" is not 
supplied by assumptions without facts to sustain 
them ; nor is the " conceivability of nature in accord- 
ance with the laws of causality " facilitated by the 
assumption of an inconceivable cause. 

There is a law of induction known to logicians (and 
sometimes observed by them) which is denominated 
" the law of parcimony." It was first formulated 
by Sir William Hamilton, and applied by him to the 
inductive investigation of the laws of the human 
mind. The rule is " that no fact be assumed as a 
fact of consciousness but what is ultimate and 
simple." 2 It has since been extended into a 
general rule of inductive observation, and defined 
as "the principle that nothing shall be assumed 
as a fact that is not such in reality." 3 Another 
definition is " sparingness, as in assumptions," — 
which gives a little more latitude. It is a good 

1 Quoted by Haeckel, op. cit. p. 33. 

2 Metaphysics, Lect. XV. p. 186, 

3 Standard Dictionary. 



THE ARGUMENT FROM HEREDITY, Z 2 7 

rule, and, as before remarked, it is sometimes 
observed by logicians, sometimes not. But, to 
do entire justice to those who do not observe the 
rule, it must be said that they depart from it only 
when driven by " necessity," as in the case of those 
who entertain the theory of spontaneous generation. 
In that case they boldly abandon the law of parci- 
mony and assume everything, even the very question 
at issue; and the only justification offered is the plea 
of " necessity." 

Now, it may be confidently affirmed that truth — that 
is, any truth that it is important for man to know — 
never drives the logician to any such extremities. 
Truth is always fortified by facts, laws, and self- 
evident logical principles or propositions. The facts 
and the laws may not be known, of course, and 
hence the truth may lie hidden pending investiga- 
tion ; but they exist, nevertheless, and sooner or 
later man will find out all that it is important for 
him to know. Again, the facts may be known and 
the laws may be in doubt. In that case hypothesis 
is a legitimate instrument of logic. But when that 
instrument is employed there are two inexorable 
rules that must be observed if truth is the object 
desired. The first is that there must be some facts 
to sustain the hypothesis ; and, secondly, one adverse 
fact is sufficient to disprove the soundness of any 
hypothesis. 

But when the salient facts of any subject of inves- 
tigation are known, and when some of the funda- 
mental laws governing its phenomena are discovered, 
logical induction will generally be found equal to the 
task of ascertaining the essential truth without the 



328 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

necessity of assuming anything but the constancy of 
nature. 

Now, let us apply these principles to the subject 
under consideration, — the origin of life and mind. 
The facts have been enumerated in the preceding 
pages. They are the facts and phenomena of organic 
and mental evolution, beginning with the moneron 
and ending with man. The laws which correlate the 
phenomena and explain the facts, so far as they 
have been discovered, have been set forth. They 
are the laws of heredity and of progressive develop- 
ment. The self-evident logical axioms are the 
following: — 

1. Every effect or phenomenon in nature has an 
efficient and appropriate cause. 

2. Every cause is commensurable with its effects 
or phenomena. 

The first of these propositions is an axiom which 
everybody admits to be indisputable. The second is 
more in the nature of a truism, — the equivalent of 
saying that light is caused by a luminous body; that 
electrical phenomena are caused by electricity, etc. 
It is but another way of saying that like produces 
like, — that like causes produce like effects; that rain 
causes dampness ; in short, that all causative agencies 
produce effects that correspond to the nature of the 
causes. This is what Mr. Herbert Spencer would 
designate as the " universal postulate ; " for " the 
inconceivableness of its negation " shows that it pos- 
sesses " unsurpassable validity." 1 That is to say, it 
is impossible to conceive the negative of the propo- 
sition that cause and effect are commensurable. 

1 Principles of Psychology, ii. — 2, p. 407. 



THE ARGUMENT FROM HEREDITY, 329 

To deny this postulate is to assume an attitude of 
pure and simple negation; it is to deny the fact of 
the constancy of nature, — to deny that the phenom- 
ena of nature possess any significance whatever. 

It would be equivalent to an affirmation that the 
phenomena of nature are to be interpreted by the 
rule of contraries. It would be equivalent to a 
wholesale denial of the validity of induction as a 
process of scientific inquiry. 

Now, let us see what are the logical implications of 
the affirmative of the postulate. Simply this : that 
by an examination of the nature of effects or phe- 
nomena we can always know the nature of their efficient 
causes. We may not be able to drag the cause to 
light so as to weigh it in a balance, dissect it with a 
scalpel, or exhibit it on a stage ; but we can know its 
nature with just as great a degree of certainty as if 
we could do all those things. Thus, when we see a 
spring of water gushing from the side of a mountain, 
we may not be able to reach its source even by tun- 
nelling the mountain, for it may be many miles dis- 
tant. But we know the nature of that source. We 
know that it is a body of water. " But," some one 
may say, " suppose that nature, in some hidden 
alembic within the mountain, generates the water 
from its constituent elements? Its source would not 
then be i a body of water.' " To this it may be re- 
plied, first, that it would be a body of water, no mat- 
ter where its elements were combined. But, waiving 
that point, we should know the nature of the cause, 
nevertheless. We should know with absolute cer- 
tainty that within that hidden alembic certain gases 
had united, in certain definite proportions, to form 



330 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

the water that constituted the source from which the 
spring was derived. If an analysis of the waters re- 
veals the presence of organic impurities, we know 
that its source, or its channel, was polluted by organic 
impurities. There is never any mistake about it, 
and we never attribute organic impurities to inorganic 
matter. The logic of atheism alone is equal to that. 

The spring of water teaches another lesson to 
science which is often overlooked. It is that a 
stream never rises higher than its source. This is 
true, not only of flowing water, but of every force in 
nature. That is to say, the flowing stream is a sym- 
bol in that respect of every other force. Not one 
of nature's forces, as developed or phenomenally 
manifested on this planet, equals its potential energy 
as it exists in the Cosmos. Atheism has sought to 
make an exception of the greatest of all — the mind 
energy of the universe — by locating its source in the 
inorganic world. But there are no exceptions to the 
laws of nature. 

This, however, is a digression. The point I wish 
to illustrate is the commensurableness of cause and 
effect, by showing that science commensurates all 
the facts, laws, principles, and elements of both cause 
and effect in that simple phenomenon of nature, — a 
spring of water. They are all interrelated and inter- 
dependent, but not more so than in any and every 
case where causes operate to produce effects. 

A law as universal as the law of gravitation may 
now be formulated thus : — 

All the causative forces of nature are commensurable 
with their effects or phenomena. 

It follows that something of the nature or salient 



THE ARGUMENT FROM HEREDITY. 33 1 

characteristics of every causative force may be learned 
by an examination and study of its visible effects or 
phenomena. 

In the mean time it may be set down as axiomatic 
that Nature never erects false signals or guide-posts 
to deceive the unwary explorer of her domains. She 
never erects false lights upon her shores to lure the 
voyager in search of truth upon the rocks and break- 
ers of error and falsehood. Facts are divine revela- 
tions addressed to the common understanding of 
mankind, and reason is their divinely commissioned 
interpreter. Every fact has a meaning, and, properly 
interpreted, it constitutes an advanced step in the 
direction of ultimate truth. 

It will now be seen that we have a means of know- 
ing the essential character of that potential energy, 
that causative force, which produced the effect or 
phenomena of mind and life on this planet. Under 
the law which has been formulated, and which may 
be designated as the law of commensurable cause 
and effect, together with the law of heredity, we may 
learn the nature of the cause of mind by studying its 
effects or phenomena. 

We know, therefore, — 

1. That it is a mind energy or force; for we 
observe that its effects or phenomena are those of 
mind. 

2. It is an organized, conscious intelligence; for 
its effects are organized, conscious intelligences. 

3. It is a creative energy (omnipotence), for its 
resultant mind organisms possess creative powers. 

4. It is a constant energy or force tending towards 
progressive development; for its resultant mind 



332 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN 

energy constitutes the progressive potential of all 
evolutionary development. 

5. It possesses an intuitive knowledge of all truth 
that is essential to its state of existence (omnis- 
cience) ; for the lowest mental organism on earth is 
endowed with identical powers, differing in exact 
proportion to its stage of development. 

6. It is an altruistic intelligence (a God of love), 
for the instinct of altruism, beginning with the 
monera, dominates the world, — physical, mental, 
moral, and religious. 

7. It is an intelligence transmissible by inherit- 
ance ; for that is the only method by which mental 
faculties are transmitted in the organic world. 

8. Finally, it is an infinite intelligence ; for the 
mental faculties of the lowest order of animal life, by 
infinite extension, would be infinite in knowledge, 
power, and love. 

These are some of the things that we may know 
of the nature and attributes of the Great First Cause; 
for they are the results of the inductive observation 
of tangible facts that cannot be accounted for on any 
other hypothesis. They are not conclusions resulting 
either from intuition, guessw r ork, or assumption. 
They are conclusions which must of necessity be 
valid if the facts of cause and effect are interrelated. 
The only way to cast a shade of doubt upon their 
validity would be by demonstrating that cause and 
effect have no necessary relation to each other. 

And this, in fact, is the logical attitude of atheism 
regarding this question. 

We might pause here and rest our case upon the 
overwhelming preponderance of evidence thus far 



THE ARGUMENT FROM HEREDITY. 333 

adduced in behalf of Christian theism. But I should 
fail to do justice to those eminent scientists who have 
thus far furnished the facts for my induction, did I 
neglect to give due attention to the strongest array 
of facts and arguments that they have presented in 
support of the general theory of organic evolution. 
I shall pay due regard to those facts and arguments 
for two good and sufficient reasons. The first is 
that they present conclusive evidence of the truth of 
the doctrine of evolution ; and the second is that the 
same facts and arguments leave absolutely nothing to 
be desired in the way of proof of the truth of the 
theistic hypothesis. 



CHAPTER VIII. 

HUMAN ONTOGENY AND PHYLOGENY. 

The Strongest Argument in Favor of the Evolutionary Hypothesis. — 
The Analogical Argument from Ontogeny to Phylogeny. — 
Haeckel's Great Work Demonstrative of its Validity. — But he 
was in Search of Atheistic Arguments. — He found None. — 
On the Contrary, he found Proofs of Theism. — General Remarks 
in re the Analogical Argument. — Invalid unless the Phenomena 
and Laws are the Same. — The Present Argument Valid. — 
Ontogeny a Repetition of Phylogeny. — Phylogeny the Cause of 
Ontogeny under the Law of Heredity. — The Primordial Germ 
and the Germinal Cell Identical in Character and Attributes. — 
The Importance of this Fact. — The Later Forms of the Human 
Embryo correspond with the Salient Steps in Phylogeny. — The 
Law of Heredity the Cause of the Correspondence. — Evidence 
Comparable to that of Successive Geological Strata. — Man 
recognizes his Earliest Earthly Ancestor by its Resemblance to 
the Form which marked his Earliest Embryotic Form. — Haeckel's 
" Fundamental Law of Organic Evolution " formulated. — The 
Debt that Science owes to Haeckel. — The Pains he has taken 
to develop Facts that disprove his Anti-Theistic Beliefs. — His 
Method of accounting for his Facts not so Ingenuous, or he 
has failed to see their Trend. — His Invitation to Philosophers. — 
His Promised Rewards to those who will explain Ontogeny 
phylogenetically. — His own Conclusions arrived at only by 
ignoring his Facts. — Next Chapter will explain Ontogenetic 
Facts phylogenetically, and carry the Analogical Argument to 
its Legitimate Conclusion. 

TF any intelligent evolutionist, who is familiar with 
-*■ the leading facts and arguments in support of 
the theory of organic evolution, were asked what 
is the strongest and most convincing array of facts 
and arguments in favor of that doctrine, he would 
most likely answer that it is the analogical argument 



HUMAN ONTOGENY AND PHYLOGENY. 335 

from the ontogeny of the germinal cell to the phy- 
togeny of the primordial germ. If he be familiar 
with the best literature on the subject, he will doubt- 
less cite Professor Haeckel's great work on " The 
Evolution of Man " as the first, and in many respects 
the best, treatise in which that particular branch of 
the subject is exhaustively treated, and in such a man- 
ner as to make it popularly available. Its sub-title 
is " A Popular Exposition of the Principal Points of 
Human Ontogeny and Phylogeny. ,, 

I have already spoken of its high standing in the 
scientific world ; and I have availed myself of many 
of the facts which he was the first to promulgate, and 
of which he was the first to recognize the scientific 
value. It is true that I have given an interpretation 
to the facts relating to the monera that is diametri- 
cally opposed to his, and I have invested them with a 
higher scientific value than he did. He was in search 
of the hypothetical connecting link between organic 
life and inorganic chemical compounds. In other 
words, he was in search of evidence to prove that 
life and mind originated from something that is the 
very opposite of both life and mind. He was, in 
fact, in pursuit of evidence to prove that there is no 
God. 

He found no such evidence. On the contrary, he 
brought to light a series of facts exactly adapted to 
the uses of his opponents. And I undertake to say 
that if the combined hosts of Christian believers could 
unite their wisdom, they could not imagine a series of 
facts better adapted than his to prove the existence 
of the God of Christian faith, and at the same time to 
prove that God rules this universe by means of im- 



336 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

mutable law. The world can never repay the debt of 
gratitude it owes to Professor Haeckel for the fear- 
lessness and scientific integrity exhibited in promul- 
gating a series of facts that, unless blinded by 
prejudice, he must have known were wellnigh demon- 
strative of the theory that he repudiated. He has 
given us the facts so minutely detailed and so amply 
verified that atheism can neither deny their existence 
nor their theistic significance. 

But that is not the only service Professor Haeckel 
has rendered to Christian theism. He has furnished 
arguments as well, and his arguments are backed by 
an invincible phalanx of facts. I refer particularly to 
his analogical argument from ontogeny to phylogeny. 
It is true that he employs it solely for the purpose 
of demonstrating the truth of the evolutionary hy- 
pothesis ; but, as I shall undertake to show, it is as 
clearly demonstrative of theism as it is of evolution. 
In point of fact, it leaves nothing to be desired in the 
way of evidence for either evolution or theism. 

Before proceeding to the consideration of the argu- 
ment from ontogeny, I desire to make a remark in 
reference to analogical arguments in general. In one 
of my former works * I ventured to animadvert upon 
the practice, which has obtained for many years 
among certain polemics of high degree, which con- 
sists in the reckless employment of the analogical 
argument. This form of reasoning is abused prob- 
ably more than any other, partly owing to its plau- 
sible character, and partly to a lack of power to 
discriminate between fanciful illustration and proof, 
between poetic license and scientific demonstration. 

1 See lt A Scientific Demonstration of the Future Life/' chap. ii. 



HUMAN ONTOGENY AND PHYLOGENY. 337 

One of the most common examples of the abuse of 
this form of argument is shown in reasoning from the 
metamorphosis of the caterpillar into the butterfly 
up to an immortal life for man. It is invalid, for the 
simple reason that the laws which govern the one are 
not identical with those which obtain in the other. 
The rule is that no analogical argument is valid from 
a scientific, or inductive, point of view unless it can 
be shown that the laws governing the phenomena ob- 
served are identical with those of the subject-matter 
under investigation. 

I recall the attention of the logical reader to this 
rule for the purpose of reminding him that Professor 
Haeckers analogical argument from ontogeny to 
phylogeny possesses the highest degree of validity; 
for the laws are obviously the same. There is, in- 
deed, a causal relation between them, as will be seen 
later on. 

The general proposition is stated in the language 
of Professor Haeckel, as follows : — 

" The history of the evolution of organisms consists 
of two closely connected parts : ontogeny, which is the 
history of the evolution of individual organisms ; and phy- 
logeny, which is the history of the evolution of organic 
tribes. Ontogeny is a brief and rapid recapitulation of 
phylogeny, dependent on the physiological functions of 
heredity (reproduction) and adaptation (nutrition). The 
individual organism reproduces in the rapid and short 
course of its own evolution the most important of the 
changes in form through which its ancestors, according to 
the law of heredity and adaptation, have passed in the 
slow and long course of their paleontological evolution." l 

1 The Evolution of Man, vol. i. pp. I, 2. 
22 



338 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN 

Here, then, we have a clear and comprehensive 
statement of one of the greatest and most significant 
facts in nature. Ontogeny is the history of the 
development or evolution of individual organisms. 
Human ontogeny is the history of the development 
or evolution of the germinal cell of man from the 
moment of conception to maturity. Human phylog- 
eny is the history of the evolution of the primordial 
germ from the moneron to man. Phylogeny is re- 
peated in ontogeny. That is to say, the human 
embryo begins its history as a unicellular organism, 
microscopic in size, and possessing all the salient 
characteristics of the lowest unicellular organism 
known to science. In point of fact, there is a short 
period when the human embryo reverts to a form- 
less, structureless condition. Of this our author 
remarks : — 

" At present, therefore, the majority of observers assume 
that between the original nucleated egg-cell and the 
known nucleated parent-cell there is a stage in which there 
is no real cell-kernel or nucleus, and in which, therefore, 
the form value of the whole organic individual is no longer 
that of a true nucleated cell, but that of a non-nucleated 
cytode, i.e. a simple protoplasmic body in which no true 
cell-kernel (nucleus) is to be found. " * 

Of the importance of this fact Professor Haeckel 
has this to say : — 

" We regard it as a fact of the greatest interest that the 
human child, like that of every other animal, is, in this 
first stage of its individual existence, a non-nucleated ball 
of protoplasm, a true cytode, a homogeneous, structureless 

1 Op. cit. p. 178. 



HUMAN ONTOGENY AND PHYLOGENY. 339 

body, without different constituent parts. For in this 
* monerula-form ' the structure of the animal, and thus of 
the human organism, is of the simplest conceivable nature. 
The simplest known organisms, and at the same time the 
simplest conceivable organisms, are the ' monera/ most of 
which are minute, microscopic, and formless bodies, con- 
sisting of a homogeneous substance, of an albuminous or 
mucous soft mass, and which, though they are not com- 
posed of diverse organs, are yet endowed with all the vital 
qualities of an organism. They move, feed, and reproduce 
themselves by division. These monera are of great impor- 
tance, owing to the fact that they afford the surest starting- 
point for the theory of the origin of life on our earth. We 
shall presently have further occasion to point out their 
significance. Here we need only give due weight to the 
very remarkable fact that, both in germ history and tribal 
history, the animal organism begins its evolution as a 
structureless mucous ball. The human organism, like that 
of the higher animals, exists for a short time in this sim- 
plest conceivable form, and its individual evolution com- 
mences from this simplest form. The entire human child, 
with all its great future possibilities, is in this stage only a 
small, simple ball of primitive slime (protoplasm). " * 

I have been thus particular in quoting somewhat 
at length what Professor Haeckel has to say in 
reference to the beginning of the ontogenetic history 
of the embryo of man for the reason that I regard it 
as possessing greater evidential value than any other 
stage of development. The particular reasons will 
more fully appear hereinafter. 

The later forms of the embryo corresponding to 
those of the phylogenetic series cannot be described 

1 Op. cit. p. 178 et seq. 



34° THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

in detail in a work like this, and the curious reader 
must be referred to the work from which I have 
quoted. It must be said, however, that the series 
of gradients is necessarily far from complete. The 
history of untold ages of years cannot be repeated in 
all its details within the space of three quarters of 
a year. Nevertheless, the evidential value of what 
we have is not in the least impaired ; for the salient 
features are reproduced with such circumstantiality 
of detail as to leave no room for rational doubt of 
the fact that human phylogeny is repeated in human 
ontogeny. Moreover, this being true, it follows that 
a causal relation exists between the two. That is to 
say, phylogeny is the cause of ontogeny; and this 
in turn is demonstrative of the never-failing potency 
and the far-reaching significance of the law of 
heredity. 

We have already seen that, at the beginning of 
the embryotic life of man, the beginning of organic 
life on the earth is faithfully and minutely repeated ; 
and we know that the culmination of both histories is 
identical. That is to say, human phylogeny began 
with the moneron and culminated in man; and 
human ontogeny begins with the monerula and 
culminates in a completely formed human being. 
This of itself constitutes presumptive evidence of 
the truth of the hypothesis. If, therefore, such of 
the intermediate steps in the ontogenetic series as 
are shown to exist are even approximately the same 
as those in the phylogenetic series, the evidence is 
conclusive. More especially is this true if the in- 
termediate steps do not transcend their regular order 
as they occur in the phylogenetic series. In other 



HUMAN ONTOGENY AND PHYLOGENY. 341 

words, the value of the evidence is greatly enhanced 
by, if indeed it does not depend upon, the fact that the 
forms as they are developed in the ontogenetic series 
are never reversed in the order of their development 
in the phylogenetic series. 

Thus, the human embryo at a certain period has 
essentially the anatomical structure of the lancelet, 
later of a fish, and in subsequent stages those of 
amphibian and mammal forms. Moreover, in the 
further evolution of these mammal forms those first 
appear which stand lowest in the series, namely, 
forms allied to the beaked animals {Ornithorhynchus) ; 
then those allied to pouched animals (Marsupialid), 
which are followed by forms most resembling apes ; 
till at last the peculiar human form is produced as 
the final result 1 The point is that the order of 
development of these forms in the ontogenetic series 
is never reversed ; and that, as far as they go, they 
correspond to the orderly sequence of their develop- 
ment in the phylogenetic series. This of itself is 
demonstrative of the causal relation between the 
two series and the dominating influence of the law 
of heredity in the process of organic evolution. 

It will thus be seen that the evidence in this case 
is analogous in character to that by which we deter- 
mine the orderly sequence of geological strata. No 
one place has yet been discovered on our earth 
where all the geological strata are present in the 
order in which they were deposited. Nevertheless 
we know the order in which they were formed by 
comparison of the formations shown in different 
localities ; and we know the order was never re- 
1 See " The Evolution of Man," vol. i. p. 3. 



342 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

versed, for the reason that we never find an older 
stratum above a later one. Thus, we never find the 
Cambrian overlying the Silurian, or the Devonian 
underlying either the Cambrian or the Silurian. The 
latter may be absent in a given locality, but it will 
never be found anywhere either above the Devo- 
nian or below the Cambrian. Hence the geologist 
knows beyond the shadow of a doubt the orderly 
sequence of geological formations; and with these 
data he can " reconstruct the past and predict the 
future." 

In like manner the scientific evolutionist knows 
his ground. He knows, from a comparative analysis 
of phylogenetic and ontogenetic forms, that a causal 
relation must exist between the two ; and that con- 
viction becomes a certainty when he knows that the 
order in which those forms are developed in the 
two series is exactly the same. And he, too, is thus 
enabled to reconstruct the past and predict the 
future; for he recognizes in this law the " one touch 
of nature " that literally "makes the whole world 
kin." He finds the key to his own pedigree in his 
own ontogeny; and he finds its details recorded, 
with unerring certainty and exactitude, in his own 
phylogeny. Step by step he traces his ancestry 
back through myriads of forms and aeons of time 
to the very beginning of organic life ; and he recog- 
nizes his earliest earthly ancestor by its identity in 
form and substance with that which marked the first 
stage in his own embryotic life and development. 

From this induction, backed by innumerable facts, 
each pointing toward the one conclusion, he infers 
a law, — " the fundamental law of organic evolution" 



HUMAN ONTOGENY AND PHYLOGENY. 343 

as Haeckel emphatically puts it; " or more briefly, 
the first principle of biogeny." x 

The following is Professor Haeckel's formal state- 
ment of the law : — 

"This fundamental law, ... on the recognition of 
which depends the thorough understanding of the history 
of evolution, is briefly expressed in the proposition that 
the history of the germ is an epitome of the history of the 
descent; or, in other words, that ontogeny is a recapitu- 
lation of phylogeny; or, somewhat more explicitly, that 
the series of forms through which the individual organism 
passes during its progress from the egg cell to its fully 
developed state is a brief, compressed reproduction of 
the long series of forms through which the animal ances- 
tors of that organism (or the ancestral forms of its species) 
have passed from the earliest periods of so-called organic 
creation down to the present time. 

"The causal nature of the relation which connects 
the history of the germ (embryology or ontogeny) with 
that of the tribe (phylogeny) is dependent on the phe- 
nomena of heredity and adaptation. When these are 
properly understood, and their fundamental importance 
in determining the forms of organisms recognized, we 
may go a step further, and say : phylogenesis is the 
mechanical cause of ontogenesis. The evolution of the 
tribe, which is dependent on the laws of heredity and 
adaptation, effects all the events which take place in the 
course of the evolution of the germ or embryo." 2 

I have thus briefly set forth, mostly in the language 
of its ablest exponent, the most important fact in the 
history of organic evolution, as well as the strongest 

1 " Biogeny " is the history of organic evolution in its widest sense. 
8 Op. cit. vol. i. pp. 6, 7. 



344 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

argument in support of the evolutionary hypothesis. 
It is but simple justice to Professor Haeckel to say 
that his facts are beyond dispute. Their development 
is the result of years of herculean labor and consci- 
entious research; and his love of truth for its own 
sake is demonstrated by the infinite pains he has 
taken to develop facts, even though they disprove 
his anti-theistic beliefs. His conclusions, so long as 
he keeps within the domain of organic evolution, are 
also eminently just and legitimate. That is to say, 
from the moneron to man, inclusive of both, no true 
scientist will gainsay either his facts or his conclusions. 
It is only when he attempts to go back of the mo- 
neron in search of efficient causes that he fails to see 
the true significance of the facts that he has brought 
to light. It is there that his ingenuousness ceases to 
be conspicuous, excepting in his confession that he 
has adopted a conclusion which is unsustained by 
any fact or phenomenon of nature. This, however, I 
have already pointed out. I now propose to inquire 
what further conclusions are legitimately derivable 
from the great law of interrelated and interdepen- 
dent phylogeny and ontogeny. I am encouraged to 
do so because of the learned author's invitation to 
the philosophical world, to say nothing of the 
promised results. In the closing chapter of his great 
work he makes this encouraging observation : — 

"The speculative philosopher who will take possession of 
the facts of ontogeny and explain them phylogenetically 
(according to that law) , will introduce a greater advance 
in the history of philosophy than has been made by the 
greatest thinkers of all previous centuries." l 
1 Op. cit. vol. ii. p. 454. 



HUMAN ONTOGENY AND PHYLOGENY. 345 

It must be admitted by the most apathetic that the 
prize is a glittering one and well worth striving for; 
but, unfortunately, I am barred out of the race by the 
professor's terms. In the first place, he qualifies the 
conditions by declaring, later on, that " it cannot be 
doubted that these facts, if properly weighed and 
judged without prejudice," will lead to the professor's 
own atheistic conclusions. Besides, I am not a 
11 speculative philosopher;" and the promised reward 
is limited to that class of thinkers. Moreover, the 
professor has exhibited to us, in his own proper 
person, a specimen of the kind of speculative phi- 
losopher that is required for his purposes. Judging 
from the sample, and the task to be performed, it 
requires a philosopher who will adopt Professor 
Haeckel's facts as his premises and ignore them in 
his conclusions. In other words, there is no way of 
arriving at the professor's conclusions in relation to 
the origin of life on this planet except by completely 
ignoring his facts. This I cannot consent to do, 
even for the brilliant rewards naturally flowing from 
the introduction of a new element of confusion and 
uncertainty into the speculative philosophy " of all 
previous centuries." I shall, nevertheless, " take 
possession of the facts of ontogeny and explain them 
phylogenetically," as I understand them, with special 
reference to their bearing upon the question of the 
origin of life. 



CHAPTER IX. 

THE THEISTIC ARGUMENT FROM ONTOGENY AND 
PHYLOGENY. 

Professor Haeckel's Premises accepted for more than his Estimated 
Valuation. — No Dispute as to Facts. — The Matter in Dispute 
relates to Deductions from Laws agreed upon. — The Invisible 
World not outside the Domain of Law. — All Natural Forces 
Invisible. — Deductions from Known Laws always Legitimate. — 
Facts agreed upon by Atheists and Theists : i. Ontogeny repeats 
Phylogeny. — 2. Phylogeny causes Ontogeny. — 3. Heredity the 
Controlling Law\ — 4. Heredity controls Ontogeny and Phylogeny. 

— 5. Potentialities of Manhood reside in the Germinal Cell of 
Man. — 6. Also in the Primordial Germ. — It follows that (1) the 
Laws are the same ; (2) that Pre-existent Conditions were the 
same; (3) that Causes were Identical in Kind. — The Ontogenetic 
and Phylogenetic Series begin alike with the Moneron and end in 
Man. — Each has Identical Powers and Mental Attributes. — Con- 
ditions and Causes being the same, if we find the Cause for one 
Condition we can safely infer the other. — We know why Poten- 
tials of Manhood reside in the Germinal Cell of Man. — Because 
they were inherited from an Antecedent Mind, — that of the Parent. 

— Corollary: The Potentialities of Manhood reside in the Mo- 
neron because they were inherited from an Antecedent Mind, — 
that of the Infinite Parent. — No other Conclusion logically Le- 
gitimate. — A Denial is a Repudiation of all Known Laws relating 
to it, especially that of Heredity. — If Nature is constant, the 
Moneron inherited its Divine Potentialities from the Divine Mind. 

— This is the Analogical Argument carried to its Legitimate 
Conclusion. — The Analogy is Incomplete without it, and there- 
fore Invalid. — What does Atheism offer in Refutation? — Spon- 
taneous Generation. — A Theory without a Fact to support it. — 
An Abandonment of Induction. — A Guess and a Hope that 
Somebody may sometime discover (or manufacture) a Fact to sus- 
tain the Atheist's Guesses. — Darwin's Guess and Huxley's Hope. 

— Haeckel's Guess without Hope. — Ward's Guess and Hope,^=» 



ONTOGENY, PHYTOGENY, AND THEISM. 347 

Specimens of Atheistic "Induction." — Nevertheless the World 
owes them much ; notwithstanding a Relapse toward Fetichism, 
they builded better than they knew. — Their Facts prove the The- 
ory of Evolution, but they also prove the Existence of the God 
of Christian Faith. 

WE have now before us all the salient facts and 
phenomena of organic evolution that are 
necessary to enable us to reach a definite conclusion 
in regard to the question of the origin of life on this 
planet. The fundamental law of organic evolution 
has been stated in the language of its ablest expo- 
nent, and accepted as correct in every sense of the 
word. There is, therefore, no disagreement either as 
to the facts from which the law has been induced, or 
as to the correctness of the induction. 

It must be remembered, however, that the facts 
and the law, as thus agreed upon by and between 
the contending parties, all pertain to the subject of 
organic evolution as they are manifested in phenom- 
ena in the visible organic world, beginning with the 
monera and culminating in man. The matter in 
dispute lies outside the realm of what is cognizable 
by the senses. But it is not outside the dominion of 
law. It is not outside the domain of the law which 
has been found to exist, and which has been formu- 
lated in the preceding pages of this book. It is purely 
a matter of deduction from that known fundamental 
law of organic evolution, that first principle of biog- 
eny, to which all questions pertaining to the sub- 
ject-matter must be referred. The fact that a force 
is invisible does not remove it from the domain 
of law. All the forces of nature are invisible ; and 
yet we harness them to our uses and formulate their 
laws. The mind energy that animates the monera is 



34^ THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

invisible ; but it is the creature of law. And so is the 
source from which the moneron derived its life and 
mind, whether it resided in the rocks and mud of the 
inorganic earth or emanated from an infinite ante- 
cedent mind. The fact that a causal relation existed 
between the two brings them under the law of " corn- 
mensuration," 1 and hence under the fundamental law 
of organic evolution. That is to say, since the causal 
forces of nature are always necessarily commensurable 
with their terrestrial modes or forms of manifestation, 
it follows that they are governed by the same laws. 
We may, therefore, deduce from the known law all 
legitimate conclusions relating to antecedent causes 
or consequent effects, with the same confidence that 
we should feel if all the forces of nature were visible. 

Before proceeding to draw our conclusions it will 
be in order to enumerate the points of agreement 
between atheistic and theistic evolutionists. In that 
way the issue between them will be developed and 
clearly defined, and no time will be wasted in the 
discussion of irrelevant questions. 

The essential points are the following 

Inductions. 

1. That the history of the development of the 
human germinal cell, from the monerula to the fully 
developed human entity, is a recapitulation of the 
history of the development of the primordial germ, 
from the moneron to man ; or, in other words, that 
ontogeny is a repetition of phylogeny. 

2. That phylogeny is the cause of ontogeny. 

1 See chapter vii. 



ONTOGENY, PHYLOGENY, AND THEISM. 349 

3. That the law of heredity is the agency through 
which phylogeny controls ontogeny. 

4. That the law of heredity is universal in its 
application to the subject-matter, beginning with the 
moneron and culminating in man, on the one hand, 
and, on the other, beginning with the germinal cell 
and culminating in a fully developed human entity. 

Deductions. 

1. That the potentialities of manhood reside in 
the germinal cell of man. 

2. That the potentialities of manhood reside in 
the primordial germ. 

This, perhaps, is as far as it is prudent to go in 
assuming the points of agreement between atheism 
and theism. I have ventured thus far only because 
the foregoing propositions are all essential to the 
doctrine of organic evolution, and they have all 
been insisted upon as fundamental by the atheistic 
evolutionists. The next step would be some such 
proposition as that what is true of ontogeny is also 
true of phylogeny, or that nature is constant, or 
that nature's laws admit of no exceptions ; each of 
which propositions atheism tacitly denies when it 
seeks to account for the origin of life on the theory 
of spontaneous generation. We must, therefore, 
now proceed independently to draw conclusions from 
the premises that have been agreed upon. 

The first proposition is that, if it is true that ontog- 
eny, by virtue of the law of heredity, is a repetition 
of phylogeny, it follows that the laws of the two are 
identical. 



350 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN 

No one can deny this proposition without impeach- 
ing the law of heredity itself; for it is but a restate- 
ment of the very essence of that law. Its truth 
is, in fact, self-evident. 

Secondly, since the law of ontogeny is identical 
with the law of phytogeny, and since identical results 
have ensued, it follows that the pre-existent condi- 
tions were identical. 

The truth of this proposition also is self-evident. 

Thirdly, since the law, the results, and the condi- 
tions were each identical, it follows that the causes 
of those conditions were also identical in character 
and kind. 

No person can deny this proposition without im- 
peaching the constancy of nature. The universal 
experience of mankind may be invoked to verify it. 
" Like causes produce like effects." " Identical con- 
ditions are brought about by causes identical in 
kind." These are axioms, and they apply with un- 
varying exactitude in all the broad realm of natural 
causes and effects. They are, in fact, but varying 
forms of expressing that universal postulate, — the 
constancy of nature. 

Now, let us see how these propositions apply to 
the subject-matter under consideration. 

In making this examination we will again return 
to the beginning of organic life, for the reason that, 
as has often been repeated, the nearer we approach 
to its source the more clearly will the observable 
facts and phenomena reveal the essential character 
of that source. If facts are to be found in the 
phylogenetic series that point to spontaneous gener- 
ation as the source and origin of mind and life, we 



ONTOGENY, PHYLOGENY, AND THEISM. 35 1 

must expect to find them there; "for/' in the lan- 
guage of Haeckel, " the monera actually stand on the 
very boundary between organic and inorganic natural 
bodies. " On the other hand, if facts are to be found 
in either ontogeny or phylogeny that point to a 
divine origin of mind and life, we must still expect 
to find it at the beginning of organic life, for the 
monera also stand on the very boundary between 
the realms of mind and matter. Literally, the 
monera stand nearer to God than any other sentient 
creatures. 

Now, we have already learned from Professor 
Haeckel that this, the beginning of organic life in 
the phylogenetic series, is exactly repeated in the 
beginning of human ontogeny. We have also learned 
that the salient features of phylogeny are repeated in 
orderly sequence in ontogeny. And, finally, that 
the culmination in each of the two series is identical 
with that in the other. In short, they both begin 
with the moneron and culminate in a human being. 
We also learn, from the same high authority, that the 
law of heredity constitutes the connecting link be- 
tween the two series, and hence phylogeny is the 
cause of ontogeny. Being thus inseparably interre- 
lated by causal connections, it follows that both series 
are controlled by the same law. This, then, disposes 
of my first proposition. 

The second proposition is that since the law and 
the results are the same, it follows that the pre- 
existing conditions were identical. 

The conditions referred to are those existing at the 
beginning alike of phylogeny and ontogeny. Those 
essential to the present inquiry are the following : 



352 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

1. An unorganized, undifferentiated, homogeneous 
mass of protoplasm. 

2. An unorganized, undifferentiated, homogeneous 
mass of protoplasm endowed with a mind. 

3. An unorganized, undifferentiated, homogeneous 
mass of protoplasm endowed with a mind in which 
inhere the potentialities of manhood. 

These are the conditions that are common to the 
beginnings of the two series of events. They are the 
basic conditions upon which depend all the other 
steps in the two series. The physical conditions are 
the same in both ; and necessarily the mental condi- 
tions are identical, or the final results could not be 
the same. We know, therefore, that the conditions 
are the same, for we know that the final result — a 
human being — is identical. 

Thus far no scientific evolutionist, atheistic or 
theistic, will gainsay either my propositions or my 
conclusions; for they are all elementary deductions 
from the fundamental principle of organic evolution, 
as laid down by its ablest exponent. 

The third proposition is that, the conditions being 
the same, it follows that the causes of those condi- 
tions were identical in character and kind. This 
proposition, as before remarked, no person can deny 
without impeaching the constancy of nature. 

The conditions for which we are in search of a 
cause are stated above. The salient feature, which 
includes the others, is the fact that the mind with 
which the moneron and the monerula are each en- 
dowed contains the potentialities of manhood. The 
question is, What is the cause of this condition? 
Science tells us that it exists alike in both, and that 



ONTOGENY, PHYLOGENY, AND THEISM. 353 

it produces identical results in phylogeny and on- 
togeny, namely, manhood. How does it happen that 
these globules of protoplasm are thus endowed with 
such wonderful potentialities ? Science tells us 
that they are exactly alike in every particular. The 
chemical constituents of their bodies are the same ; 
they are equally deficient in structural organism; 
their minds have the same powers, attributes, and 
potentialities ; and the grand results of the exercise 
of those powers and the development of those poten- 
tialities are identical, for they culminate in the same 
human entity. It is, in fact, impossible to imagine 
conditions more nearly alike or more certainly the 
result of causes identical in character and kind. 

It follows that if we can ascertain the cause in one 
case we shall know with equal certainty the exact 
nature of the cause in the other. There will be no 
guesswork about it, no soaring into the regions of 
speculative philosophy in search of some fanciful 
theory of causation without facts to sustain it. 

Fortunately it so happens that we know why it is 
that the germinal cell of man, the monerula, the ini- 
tial organism in human ontogeny, is endowed with 
the potentialities of manhood. 

We know that it is because the parent from which 
it emanated was endowed with the attributes and 
qualities of manhood. 

In other words, we know that it emanated from an 
antecedent mind which was endowed with the identical 
attributes and powers that were developed from the 
initial organism. 

In short, we know that its powers and potentialities 
were due to the law of heredity. 

23 



354 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN 

Now, let us carry the analogy back to the initial 
mind-organism in the phylogenetic series. I submit 
that there is but one legitimate, logical conclusion, 
and that is that — 

The mind of the moneron derived its attributes, pow- 
ers, and potentialities , under the law of heredity, from 
an antecedent mind which was endowed with the iden- 
tical attributes and powers, differing only in degree, 
that were developed from the moneron. 

To put the crucial point of the argument in a 
nutshell, we may say, — 

Why is it that the potentialities of manhood inhere 
in the germinal cell of man ? Simply because it 
inherited them from a mind endowed with the actual 
faculties of manhood, namely, the mind of the finite 
parent. 

Again, why is it that the potentialities of manhood 
inhere in the primordial germ? Simply because it 
inherited them from a mind possessing the actual 
faculties of manhood, namely, the mind of the 
Infinite Parent. 

I submit that, in the language of Haeckel, this is 
" taking possession of the facts of ontogeny and 
explaining them phylogenetically according to that 
law." 

I submit, further, that there is no other logical, 
scientific, or reasonable phylogenetic interpretation 
of the facts of ontogeny. 

Any other possible interpretation of those facts 
involves the utter repudiation of the law of heredity 
at the very point where that law is most in evidence, 
namely, at the beginning of organic life on this planet. 
It is most in evidence at that point in organic history, 



ONTOGENY, PHYLOGENY, AND THEISM. 355 

for upon every germinal cell, at the beginning of its 
ontogenetic history, is stamped the indubitable evi- 
dence of its descent from the moneron. All through 
the aeons of time that have elapsed since the begin- 
ning of phylogenetic history the law of heredity has 
asserted its supremacy, its constancy, and its univer- 
sality ; and millions of facts occur every day, each 
one of which bears testimony to this universal truth. 
If Nature, as science instructs us, is the great teacher 
of order and uniformity; if she exhibits no false pro- 
portions and sounds no discords ; if she sets up no 
false signals to deceive the unwary ; if cause and effect 
bear any relation to each other, — if, in short, Nature 
is constant, we must suppose that the law of heredity 
did not originate in the moneron. We must suppose 
that it, too, was a creature of that law ; and that its 
wonderful faculties and divine potentialities were 
inherited from a divine mind. 

This, then, is the analogical argument from ontog- 
eny to phylogeny carried to its legitimate conclu- 
sion. If the analogy is perfect from man back to the 
moneron, as atheists very properly insist ; if the law 
governing the two series of events is identical, as 
atheistic science has very clearly demonstrated, — I 
submit that the analogy is not complete, and is there- 
fore invalid, until it is carried back to the origin and 
cause of the life and mind of the moneron as well 
as that of the monerula. As I stated in the begin- 
ning, the analogical argument in this case is legiti- 
mate, valid, and conclusive, because the phenomena 
are the same and the law is identical. I still adhere 
to that conclusion and insist upon it. But I also 
insist that its evidential value depends upon its 



356 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN 

completeness, and that it is clearly not complete until 
it is carried as far in phylogeny as it is in ontogeny. 

What, then, has atheism to offer in refutation of 
this induction? Nothing, absolutely nothing, but the 
theory of spontaneous generation. As I have re- 
peatedly dwelt upon the entire absence of facts to 
sustain that theory, I will content myself with a gen- 
eral summary of the salient features of the atheistic 
attitude on this and the subsidiary question as to 
the origin of species. I have shown that Darwin's 
theory that natural selection " originated " species 
was merely an attempt, in behalf of atheism, to sus- 
tain the theory that physical organism antedated 
mind, and was, in fact, the cause of mind. I have 
also shown, by Haeckel's demonstrations and Hux- 
ley's logic, that exactly the opposite is true, — that 
in all the broad realm of sentient life, mind not only 
antedates physical organism, but is the cause of all 
structural changes in organism. 

This, however, I have no intention to dwell upon 
here. I mention it merely for the purpose of inviting 
renewed attention to the fact that Huxley admits 
that Darwin did not present one fact to prove that 
natural selection ever originated a species. On the 
contrary, the vast array of facts which Mr. Darwin so 
ably marshalled to prove his general theory of evolu- 
tion are all against the theory that natural selection 
originated species. It preserved species (the fittest), 
but it did not originate them. 

Nevertheless, while his friend, Professor Huxley, 
felt compelled to tell the truth about his failure to 
substantiate his hypothesis, he (Huxley) was fain to 
express the hope that somebody, on some future 



ONTOGENY, PHYLOGENY, AND THEISM. 357 

occasion, would show that a new species could be 
originated by artificial selection, and thus give his 
friend Darwin's theory one fact to rest upon. 1 

Again, Professor Haeckers theory of spontaneous 
generation rests upon the same hopeful foundation. 
He admits that there are no facts to prove his 
theory — that all experimental facts are against it — 
and he is not quite sure that it can ever be experi- 
mentally proven, " unless great difficulties are over- 
come." But he very ably overcomes the difficulty 
thus encountered by questioning the sanity of those 
who do not accept his theory. 2 It is presumable, 
however, that he entertains the hope that somebody, 
some day, may be able to wrest a sign of life from 
inorganic matter. But he does not venture to ex- 
press that hope in words. 

Last, but by no means least, we have our own 
great American scientist, Professor Lester F. Ward, 
who is also filled with hope for the future of the 
science of mind. His hope is in chemistry ; and he 
believes that somebody will some day be able to 
produce the phenomena of life and mind by the 
process of " recompounding, ,, or " aggregation," of 
albuminous compounds. 3 To be sure, it has never 
yet been done, and there are, of course, no facts to 
show that it ever can be done ; but hope springs 
eternal in the atheistic breast just the same. 

These are but specimens of the boasted " inductive 
methods " of the leading atheistic scientists of Eng- 
land, America, and Germany, when dealing with the 

1 Darwiniana, p. 75. 

2 The Evolution of Man, vol. ii. p. 32. 

3 Status of the Mind Problem: a Lecture delivered in the 
National Museum, Washington, 1894. 



358 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

problems of the human mind and soul; more espe- 
cially when the question of the origin of mind and 
life is involved in their researches. 

If science stands for anything, it stands for truth. 
If the names I have mentioned suggest anything to 
those who know of their work, it is science and the 
inductive methods of research. They have written 
their names upon the scroll of fame in imperishable 
characters; and it was because of their unswerving 
devotion to truth as it is found revealed in the facts 
of nature. They set out in search of the origin of 
life, and when they found man's earliest earthly 
ancestor, they imagined that they had reached the final 
goal of their ambition. But it was there that they 
forever abandoned those methods of inductive re- 
search that had carried them so successfully through 
the mazes of evolutionary history. Was it because 
there were no facts upon which to base an inductive 
hypothesis of the origin of that life and mind which 
they found so conspicuously in evidence in man's 
earliest earthly ancestor? Clearly not. And yet 
nothing in the history of scientific research is more 
clearly evident than that they utterly abandoned and 
repudiated the inductive method at that crucial point 
in the history of their search for the origin of life. 
And what did they substitute as a compensation to 
science for the repudiation of the only method of 
research by which man can be sure that he knows 
anything? They substituted a purely speculative 
hypothesis, the mere statement of which constitutes 
a reductio ad absurdum, — a theory that suggests 
nothing but a recrudescence of fetichism divested of 
its redeeming features. 



ONTOGENY, PHYTOGENY, AND THEISM. 359 

Why it is that atheistic scientists have chosen to 
ignore all that vast array of facts that point so unerr- 
ingly to a divine origin of life and mind, I leave 
others to judge. There are but two hypotheses to 
choose from. One is that it was because they had 
the logical capacity to see that the facts all conspired 
to prove the divine origin of mind ; and the other is 
that they had not that capacity. 

However, the world owes them a debt of gratitude 
for demonstrating the evolutionary hypothesis by 
means of facts that also prove the divine origin of 
life and mind. 

If those facts establish the truth of the evolutionary 
hypothesis, they are equally demonstrative of the 
theistic hypothesis. And there is no possible way 
of evading or denying the latter, except by repudiat- 
ing the law of heredity, the law of cause and effect, 
the validity of the inductive method of research, — 
in short, there is no possible way of evading the 
theistic interpretation of those facts except by the 
repudiation of every rule or axiom of scientific, 
logical, or rational investigation by which the validity 
of conclusions can be established. 

I have now briefly outlined the salient facts of 
organic evolution which bear upon the question of 
the divine origin of life and mind on this planet. 
The intelligent reader will not fail to note that in the 
presentation of the crucial facts and arguments I 
have not travelled outside of the data furnished by 
the leading evolutionary scientists. That is to say, I 
have not, in the later chapters, intruded the new 
psychology into the argument, nor drawn upon it 
for data, even for the purpose of fortifying the 



360 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN, 

theistic interpretation of the facts of organic evolu- 
tion. I have pursued this course, as indicated in the 
introductory chapter of Part II. for the purpose of 
exhibiting the strength of the theistic argument when 
based alone upon the facts admitted by atheistic evo- 
lutionists; thus avoiding possible prejudices against 
the new psychology. 

Nor will the intelligent Christian reader fail to note 
that the most important conclusion derivable from 
what has been said is yet to be stated. And that is 
that, if our conclusions are valid regarding the divine 
origin of life, it follows that the truth of the Christian 
theory of the essential divinity of man is proved be- 
yond a doubt. 

It now remains to show what light is thrown by the 
new psychology upon man's divine pedigree. 



CHAPTER X. 

IN THE IMAGE OF GOD. 

The True Basis of Reconciliation of Religion and Science. — Con- 
sists in a Truthful Interpretation of the Facts of Nature. — There 
are not Two Orders of Truth, one Scientific and the other 
Religious. — The Old Prophet's Declaration. — Man was made in 
the Image of God. — The Common Anthropomorphic Interpre- 
tation. — Due to a Defective Psychology. — God was conceived 
as an Infinite Reasoner. — Otherwise an Infinite Inquirer after 
Facts and a Guesser at Conclusions. — The Divine Likeness in 
the Faculties of the Subjective Mind. — Even its Limitations 
Suggestive of Divine Attributes. — The Significance of its Limita- 
tions. — Its Faculties tabulated. — Intuition an essentially Divine 
Attribute. — Its Importance in the Organic World. — Deductive 
Reasoning the Concomitant of Intuition. — They, with Memory, 
constitute the Intellectual Faculties of the Subjective Mind. — 
Extended by Infinity, they would be Omniscience. — Inconceivable 
Rapidity of Subjective Mentation. — Prodigious Feats of Memory. 
— Illustrative Cases. — Dynamic Energy of the Subjective Mind. — 
Telekinesis. — Extended to Infinity, it would be Omnipotence. — 
New Testament Examples of Dynamic Force of the Soul. — 
Telepathy. — Its Significance. — Distance no Obstacle — Infinite 
Extension would constitute Omnipresence. — A Channel of Com- 
munication between God and Man. — Prayer and Inspiration. — 
The Natural Emotions. — Their Altruistic Character. — Infinite 
Extension would mean Infinite and Universal Love. — Thus the 
Faculties of the Soul, infinitely extended, give us an Omniscient, 
Omnipotent, Omnipresent God of Infinite and Universal Love. — 
The Highest Possible Conception of Deity. — The Conception 
not Anthropomorphic. — It neither limits nor measures God. — 
His Qualities alone revealed. — But it shows that Man was made 
in the Image of God. — This much Man may know of God. — 
Not that it reveals Human Attributes in God, but Divine Attri- 
butes in Man. — Man's Place in Nature. — His Obligations and 
Duties. 



I 



HAVE now outlined the leading facts of organic 
evolution which conspire to prove beyond a 



362 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN 

doubt the existence of an infinite intelligence — a 
divine mind — which is the origin and the great first 
cause of life and mind on this planet. By the aid of 
those great scientists to whom the world is indebted 
for the facts and arguments which demonstrate the 
essential truth of the theory of organic evolution, I 
have been able to trace the descent of man back to 
a divine ancestry. I might pause here; for it is 
sufficiently evident, from what has already been said, 
not only that a divine intelligence exists, but that an 
intimate personal relationship exists between that 
divine intelligence and mankind. It is, in fact, 
sufficiently evident that God is our Father, and that 
it was therefore a calm statement of a literal truth, 
and not an Oriental extravagance or a figure of 
speech, that Jesus employed when he proclaimed 
the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. 
The inerrant intuitions of the Man of Nazareth are 
thus made manifest by the inductions of modern 
science; and thus the great fundamental principle of 
the Christian religion is shown to rest upon a firm 
scientific foundation as well as upon the authority of a 
divine intuition or revelation. It is shown that there 
are not two antagonistic orders of truth in the uni- 
verse, — one scientific and the other religious ; but 
that, on the contrary, religious truth will not and 
cannot be antagonized by true science. It is only 
by a false and vicious interpretation of the facts of 
nature that religious truth is antagonized. True 
science is, therefore, the handmaid of true religion ; 
and the reconciliation of religion and science only 
awaits a true interpretation of the phenomena of 
nature. 



IN THE IMAGE OF GOD. 363 

There is, however, another sublime intuition that 
remains to be considered. It was by an older 
prophet than Jesus; but it is of equal interest and 
importance with that which we have been consider- 
ing. It is, indeed, a corollary of the fact of divine 
Fatherhood, and, under the law of heredity, it must 
be equally true and verifiable. I refer to the decla- 
ration of the prophet of old that " man was made in 
the image of God." 

I am quite well aware of the anthropomorphic 
interpretation of that declaration that has been 
given to it by the enemies of the Christian religion. 
I am also aware that atheism has been wont to 
contribute to the gayety of its cult by picturing to 
the imagination a man of colossal proportions — a 
physical and intellectual monster — as the true 
interpretation of the prophet's conception of God. 
Of course, as all but atheists are aware, the words 
were spoken, not of physical man, but of mental 
attributes. But even this higher conception did not 
entirely remove it from the charge of gross anthro- 
pomorphism so long as the crude ideas of the old 
psychology were imported into it and made a part of 
the conception. The old psychology bore it in upon 
us, with perpetual insistence, that the highest intel- 
lectual power with which man is invested is that of 
inductive reasoning. The conception of God was, 
therefore, necessarily limited by the prevailing 
ideas of the powers of man. The highest possible 
conception of God, therefore, under the old psycho- 
logical ideas, was that of a being endowed with 
infinite reasoning powers. Inductive reasoning, as 
I have often remarked, is merely a method of in- 



364 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

quiry ; and a very slow and laborious method it is. 
It is a systematic effort to find out something of 
which we are ignorant. Extending that faculty to 
infinity does not change its character nor divest it 
of its limitations. A God of infinite reason, there- 
fore, would still be a searcher after facts and a 
guesser at conclusions. It is obvious that a concep- 
tion of Deity based upon man's inductive powers is 
of a being of limited intelligence, and hence open 
to the charge of anthropomorphism. 

I repeat, therefore, what I have so strongly in- 
sisted upon in the earlier chapter, of this book, that 
the brain is a physical organ — a product of organic 
evolution — especially adapted to a physical environ- 
ment and to no other; and that its powers of induc- 
tion are no more a part of man's divine heritage 
than are his powers of deglutition. The divine part 
of man is his subjective mind — the mind of his 
immortal soul — which exists independently of the 
body or any of its physical organs ; which is literally 
a spark of the divine intelligence, — literally a part 
of the mind of God. 

It is to this part of man that I now wish to invite 
the attention of my readers, asking them to bear in 
mind the declaration of the prophet that man was 
made in the image of God ; and of Jesus, that we 
are the sons of God. I do so for a twofold purpose, 
namely, — 

First, to emphasize what has already been proven 
by the facts of organic evolution relating to the 
divine origin of life; and 

Secondly, to draw the legitimate deductions as to 
the character, attributes, and powers of God. 



IN THE IMAGE OF GOD. 365 

That is to say, having abundantly proved from the 
facts of organic evolution that man is the offspring 
of God, it is now logically legitimate to analyze the 
faculties of the offspring for the purpose of ascer- 
taining something of the attributes and powers of 
the ancestor. Under the law of heredity this is not 
only a legitimate logical process, but it is one that 
insures approximately correct results. Not that it 
is given to finite minds to comprehend the Infinite 
Intelligence or to fathom its mysteries; but that he 
is not "utterly unknowable" by his children. 

Before proceeding to an analysis of the faculties 
of the subjective mind, I wish to say a word in regard 
to its so-called limitations resulting from the law of 
suggestion. I have heretofore pointed out the fact 
that the law of suggestion is a necessary limitation 
of the independence of the soul during its sojourn 
in a physical environment, for the reason that, dur- 
ing the transitional period from savagery to civiliza- 
tion, the emotions require the regulating influence 
of reason. That influence, of course, could only be 
acquired and maintained by the reasoning mind by 
virtue of such a limitation of power as the law of 
suggestion imposes upon the subjective mind. This 
limitation continues, as I have shown, until con- 
science becomes an instinctive emotion of the soul ; 
after which the subjective mind assumes a normal 
ascendancy. I have drawn the conclusion, from all 
the facts in the case, that the subjective mind was 
created with a special adaptation to a higher life — 
an environment of truth — where no false sugges- 
tions can reach it. I have also shown that the so- 
called law of suggestion is but another way of stat- 



366 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN 

ing the fact that the subjective mind is not endowed 
with the power or faculty of inductive reasoning, and 
that that apparent limitation is due to the fact that, 
in the higher life to which it is destined, the faculty 
of intuition is the dominant intellectual faculty. 
The latter faculty enables its possessor to acquire a 
knowledge of the laws of its being and its environ- 
mental conditions by immediate, intuitive percep- 
tion ; and this, of course, would render the inductive 
faculty useless and superfluous, — in fact, impossible,, 

I repeat these observations here merely for the 
purpose of inviting renewed attention to the fact 
that an omniscient intelligence is necessarily inde- 
pendent of the use of inductive reasoning, the latter 
being merely a method of inquiry by a limited, finite 
intelligence. 

It will thus be seen that the very limitations of 
the powers of the subjective mind proclaim its 
divine origin and give promise of its ultimate 
destiny. They constitute, in fact, indubitable evi- 
dence that, in the highest sense of the expression, 
" man was made in the image of God. " 

Now, let us examine systematically the faculties 
of the subjective mind of man, with a view to finding 
what further evidence they afford of his divine origin 
and likeness, but more especially with a view to 
finding what conceptions of the attributes and powers 
of God may arise from a knowledge of those of his 
children. 

To facilitate such an examination, I append below 
a table exhibiting in systematic order all of the 
purely subjective faculties. The right-hand column 
shows the faculties as they actually exist in man. 



IN THE IMAGE OF GOD. 



367 



The left-hand column shows what they would be by 
infinite extension without a change in their essen- 
tial characteristics. In other words, the right-hand 
column exhibits man's subjective faculties as they 
exist; and the left-hand column shows the concep- 
tion of Deity which is necessarily derivable from 
a knowledge of their existence and their divine 
origin : — 



God. 


Man. 


Omniscience 

L. 


Instinct or Intuition. 

Deductive Powers (potentially Perfect). 

Memory (potentially Perfect). 


Omnipotence 


Telekinetic Energy. 


Omnipresence 


Telepathy. 


Infinite Love 


Natural Emotions. 



A few words will further explain and justify this 
table and its implications. 

At the head of the list, as beseems its godlike 
potency, is intuition, the potentialities of which can 
be adequately described only by the employment of 
terms that express the highest attribute of omni- 
science, — the power of apprehending essential truth 
antecedent to and independent of reason, experience, 
or instruction. It was by the exercise of this faculty 
that the prophet of old was enabled to grasp that 
most fundamental of all psychological truths, — that 



368 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

" man was made in the image of God. " Men have 
called it "inspiration; " and certain it is that it is 
the basis of all that we know of inspiration. It is 
the instantaneous perception of fundamental and 
necessary truth. Its first manifestation on earth 
was in the moneron, and science named it "in- 
stinct." In all the lower animals it is thus desig- 
nated. In man it is named " intuition." By infinite 
extension it becomes omniscience. It is the one 
faculty possessed by the human soul that proclaims 
the divine pedigree of man in terms that cannot be 
misunderstood. Without it animal life would have 
perished on the threshold of the organic world. 
Abolish it from the universe, and the animal world 
would perish in a generation, and God would cease 
to be omniscient. It is the intelligence behind 
creative energy, and it is the preserver of sentient 
life everywhere. 

The next faculty on the list is that of deductive 
reasoning. It is the inseparable concomitant of 
intuition. The latter grasps the law by instanta- 
neous perception, and the former, with the same 
inconceivable rapidity of mentation, deduces all 
legitimate conclusions and consequences, near and 
remote. Indeed, the processes of mentation in the 
subjective mind are so inconceivably rapid that it is 
impossible, in cases of genuine intuition, to know 
where the work of intuition ends and the process of 
deduction begins. 

Again, we are reminded of the attributes of omnis- 
cience, and we are enabled to form a finite concep- 
tion of the means by which God knows the past, 
present, and future. He knows the past by means of 



IN THE IMAGE OF GOD, 369 

a memory that is absolute; the present by imme- 
diate cognition; and the future by means of an in- 
finite knowledge of laws and causes, proximate and 
ultimate, and infinite powers of inerrant deduction. 

The next on the list is the potentially perfect 
memory of the subjective mind. Little need be 
said on this subject beyond the fact that it is an 
inherent faculty in the subjective mind of man, and 
that it is necessarily an attribute of omniscience. 

Here, then, we have the three intellectual facul- 
ties of the subjective mind of man, namely, intui- 
tion, deduction, and memory, all potentially perfect. 
That is to say, these faculties exist in the subjective 
mind of man, and are often phenomenally manifested 
in such a way as to reveal their wonderful potentiali- 
ties, as in men of genius, in mathematical and musi- 
cal prodigies, and in feats of memory far beyond the 
capability of the objective mind. Thus, the intui- 
tive perception of the laws of quantity or of numbers 
is shown in such prodigies as Zerah Colburn, 
Jedediah Buxtone, and others; and deduction enables 
them to give, instantaneously, the exact answer in 
figures to the most intricate mathematical problems. 
Perfect memory is revealed in such prodigious feats 
as that related by Coleridge of the ignorant servant- 
girl who repeated whole pages of Latin and Greek 
many years after having heard her master read those 
passages aloud in a room adjoining the one in which 
she was engaged in household work. She could not 
even read her own language, and her objective mind 
took no note of what she heard ; and yet every word 
was indelibly impressed upon the mind of the soul, 
only to reappear, years after, when the functions of 

24 



370 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN 

the brain were inhibited by disease and imminent 
dissolution. 1 

Thus is revealed, often under pathological con- 
ditions, it is true, the latent intellectual capacities 
of the subjective mind, — the mind energy of the 
human soul. It goes without saying that what is 
thus revealed in one mind must exist potentially in 
all other human minds, and that they only await 
proper conditions for their manifestation. The 
essential condition being the inhibition of the func- 
tions of the objective mind, it follows that the most 
perfect conditions under which those powers can 
reach their full fruition must be the complete 
removal of the clogs of our earthly investiture. 

This, however, is a digression. Returning to the 
subject under immediate consideration, it must be 
evident that the subjective mind of man is endowed 
with a complete intellectual equipment with divine 
potentialities; and that the faculties thus shown to 
exist in each one of us are embryotic omniscience. 
That is to say, the same faculties, simply by infinite 
enlargement and extension of their capacity, with- 
out changing their essential nature, would become 
omniscience. 

The next faculty or power of the human soul to 
be considered is what I have designated as tele- 
kinetic energy. It is simply the power to move 
ponderable bodies without physical contact or me- 
chanical appliances. I am aware that I shall run 
counter to the prejudices of some, and transcend the 
sphere of observation of many, when I say that this 

1 For further particulars of these cases, see " The Law of Psychic 
Phenomena " and authorities therein cited. 



IN THE IMAGE OF GOD. 37 1 

is the power exercised by so-called " spirit mediums " 
when they cause tables or other ponderable bodies 
to be levitated. I can only say to the skeptical that 
I know the power to exist, having for more than 
thirty years of my life pursued the investigation of 
so-called spiritistic phenomena, under the strictest 
test conditions, with two clearly defined objects in 
view, namely, first, to ascertain whether the alleged 
physical phenomena were really produced by super- 
normal means ; and, secondly, for the purpose of 
trying to find the underlying principle which would 
correlate all psychic phenomena. Whether I have 
been successful in the latter quest, the readers of 
my published works must judge for themselves. 
But as to the first, I can only assure my readers that 
I have applied every possible scientific test to nearly 
every form of physical phenomena, especially to 
that of the levitation of ponderable bodies without 
physical contact or mechanical aids; and that as the 
result of my researches I am prepared to asseverate 
that the power exists in the subjective mind of man 
to cause inanimate matter to obey his will rather 
than the law of gravitation. The only wonder to my 
mind is that any one who cares to know the truth 
should deny the fact, since it is so easily ascertained 
to be true by any one who will consent to conduct a 
candid, unprejudiced investigation. The attitude 
of denial of the physical phenomena of spiritism is 
especially inexplicable, since not one of them pos- 
sesses, in itself, any evidential value whatever for or 
against the doctrine that spirits of the dead com- 
municate with the living. This is a logical truism 
that the world has been very slow to learn. 



372 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN 

Believers in the verity of the New Testament rec- 
ords certainly have no right or occasion to doubt 
the existence of the power of levitation, since Jesus 
walked upon the water. If it is replied that he was 
exceptionally endowed, it must not be forgotten that 
Peter did the same thing. And the words of reproof 
addressed by the Master to Peter when he began to 
sink clearly indicated the source of the power. " O 
thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt ?" 
I submit that a volume of scientific dissertation could 
not have more clearly stated the fact that the power 
arose from the mental attitude of the individual, and 
not from any extraneous source, human or divine. 

I have been thus insistent upon the recognition of 
this power in man, for the reason that, while it pos- 
sesses no evidential value whatever in favor of the 
spiritistic hypothesis, it does constitute an impor- 
tant link in the chain of evidence going to prove 
the divine origin of man and his likeness to his Om- 
nipotent Father. A word will make my meaning 
clear: — 

This power, whether it emanates from spirits of 
the dead or spirits of the living, is clearly a spiritual 
or mental force or energy. It is an energy that 
moves and controls matter independently of physi- 
cal organism; for it endows inert ponderable sub- 
stances with apparent intelligence. That is to say, 
it not only causes ponderable bodies to move, but to 
answer questions intelligently by prescribed move- 
ments. It emanates, therefore, from some intelli- 
gence and is controlled by volition. That intelligence 
is the subjective mind of man. Embodied or dis- 
embodied, it is the mind of a human soul. 



IN THE IMAGE OF GOD. 373 

It is obvious that this power or energy corresponds 
to that infinite spiritual energy that assembled matter 
and created the material universe. In other words, 
that spiritual power, resident in the subjective mind 
of man, which is known to science as " telekinetic 
energy," enlarged and extended to infinity, without 
changing its essential nature, becomes omnipotence. 

The next faculty on the list is that of telepathy, 
the power possessed by the subjective minds of men 
to communicate intelligence from one to another 
independently of the ordinary sensory channels of 
transmission. 

Science has demonstrated the existence of this 
faculty in certain exceptionally developed persons 
known to scientists as " psychics." A psychic is a 
person who has developed the power to elevate the 
operations of his subjective mind above the threshold 
of normal consciousness. They are called by as 
many different names as there are theories of causa- 
tion; " clairvoyants " and "spirit mediums" being 
among the most common designations. It is often 
developed spontaneously, without any known cause ; 
and hypnotism is a powerful agency through which 
it may be experimentally demonstrated to exist. It 
was largely by this agency that the Society for Psy- 
chical Research conducted its investigations, although 
spontaneous cases are much in evidence in their re- 
ports. So-called " mediumship " is, however, the 
most prolific source of telepathic phenomena, al- 
though it is not recognized as such by the mediums 
themselves. A good " medium " is, nevertheless, 
simply a good telepathist; and it is to this power, 
exercised unconsciously and dominated by the law 



374 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN 

of suggestion, that is due all that is mysterious in 
the so-called " communications from the other world. " 
At least no alleged communication has ever yet been 
brought to light that cannot be thus accounted for. 
The same is true of all other methods of divination 
where the past, present, or future of an individual is 
accurately stated, without previous knowledge. 

It will thus be seen that telepathy is a very im- 
portant faculty of the human mind ; for it explains 
more of that which is uncanny and mysterious in 
psychic phenomena than all other things combined. 
This, however, is the limit of its practical usefulness 
in this life ; for the reason that, owing to the con- 
stantly modifying influence of the law of suggestion, 
it can never be relied upon as a practical means of 
communication. 

It is in its implications that its importance is tran- 
scendent. The most important may be enumerated 
as follows : — 

First, it gives us the logical right to believe that, 
since it performs no normal function in this life, it 
must be destined to a normal use in the future life. 
This implication is reinforced by the fact (a) that it 
is exactly adapted to the uses of disembodied souls ; 
(b) that it is not adapted to incarnate souls, being 
only manifested under abnormal conditions ; and (c) 
that a mental faculty without a normal function to 
perform somewhere is inconceivable. 1 

Secondly, the fact that this or any other faculty is 
possessed by any one or more persons is demon- 
strative that all other persons possess the same fac- 

1 For a full discussion of this subject, see " A Scientific Demon- 
stration of the Future Life." 



IN THE IMAGE OF GOD. 375 

ulty to a greater or less degree. It is at least latent 
in every human being. 

Thirdly, it follows that it existed potentially in 
all the ancestry of man, near and remote. 

We must therefore conclude that, since man traces 
his ancestry back to the divine mind, and since 
man was made in the image of God, the faculty which 
we are considering must exist, potentially at least, in 
the divine mind. 

The stupendous consequences which this con- 
clusion involves cannot be adequately considered in 
this connection. It is obvious, however, that here is 
the means by which man may reach the mind of 
God through prayer. Here is the means by which 
God may reach the souls of men who choose to open 
the line of communication by placing themselves in 
the propfer mental attitude. Here .is the agency of 
divine inspiration. 

Does God answer the prayers of his children? 
Does God inspire men with a knowledge of his laws 
and a desire to do his will? These are great ques- 
tions, which, for the present, each one must answer 
for himself, guided by the light of his own experi- 
ence. It is outside the province of this volume to 
discuss them. I am simply trying to conduct an 
inductive inquiry with a view of ascertaining some- 
thing of the general laws pertaining to the relation- 
ship which man sustains to his Maker. In this imme- 
diate connection I have shown that a law exists 
through which the divine consciousness may be 
reached ; and it follows that the converse may also 
be true. In other words, potentially man is able to 
commune with God, and God with man, without 
violating or transcending natural law. 



376 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN. 

In the mean time there is another fact connected 
with the faculty of telepathy which is of more imme- 
diate importance than any we have considered ; for 
in a sense it includes all the others. I refer to the 
fact that distance interposes no obstacle to the exer- 
cise of telepathic power. That is to say, it is appar- 
ently just as easy to communicate telepathically with 
a friend at the antipodes as with one in an adjoining 
room. The records of the London Society for Psy- 
chical Research show that some of the most remark- 
able cases of telepathic communion have been 
between persons thus widely separated. For the 
purposes of telepathic communion, therefore, space 
does not enter as an adverse factor. To all intents 
and purposes the agent is present with the percip- 
ient, and vice versa. 

It is obvious that when this faculty or power or 
energy is enlarged and extended to infinity, it be- 
comes the divine attribute of omnipresence. 

We now approach N the question that is of more 
vital importance to mankind than anything else per- 
taining to the relationship existent between God and 
his children. Thus far we have seen that the fac- 
ulties of the subjective mind of man, enlarged to 
infinity, give us a conception of an omniscient, omni- 
potent, omnipresent deity. But those attributes alone 
do not satisfy the cravings of the human heart, nor 
are they commensurate with the unperverted intuitions 
of the human soul. Neither is a deity who has only 
those attributes the God of Christian faith ; for that 
faith is founded upon the inerrant intuitions of the 
Man of Nazareth, and he proclaimed a God of infinite 
love, mercy, and benevolence. If therefore his per- 



IN THE IMAGE OF GOD. Z77 

ceptions of divine truth were inerrant, and if the 
prophet of old failed not in his apprehension of ulti- 
mate verity when he declared that man was made in 
the image of God, we may confidently expect to find 
the soul of man to be correspondingly endowed. 
Accordingly we find that the natural emotions are 
located in the subjective mind. 

Little further need be said on this branch of the 
subject beyond reminding the reader of what I 
pointed out in the earlier chapters of this book. It 
will be recalled that I showed that the so-called 
" animal passions," in their ultimate development, 
regulation, and purification, are all essentially altru- 
istic. Beginning with the primordial instinct of 
reproduction, which in its ultimate analysis is the 
parental instinct, and tracing the history of the emo- 
tions up to their final development in the higher 
civilization, we find a constant tendency toward the 
higher altruism. Classifying the emotions into the 
" self-regarding " and the " other-regarding," we 
found that they all belong to the latter class except 
the one instinct of self-preservation; and that, as 
nations and peoples progress toward the higher- 
civilization, the altruistic instincts and emotions 
assume the ascendancy. It necessarily follows that, 
if the analysis is correct, the ultimate goal of human 
progress is universal altruism. 

That it is correct is abundantly evidenced by the 
history of human progressional development since 
man emerged from primitive savagery. Moreover, 
the present analysis shows that it is necessarily true, 
since man was made in the image of God. 

It will now be seen that the chain of evidence to 



378 THE DIVINE PEDIGREE OF MAN 

prove our thesis is complete; for it is obvious that 
an extension of the natural emotions of man to in- 
finity could amount to neither more nor less than 
infinite and universal love. 

To sum up in a few words, we find in the subjec- 
tive faculties of man, without a change in their 
essential nature, the embryotic representatives of all 
that the finite mind can conceive of the essential 
attributes of God, — the God of Christian faith. 
Thus : — \r 

1. In the intellectual faculties (intuition, deduc- 
tion, and memory), potential omniscience. 

2. In its dynamic energy (telekinesis), potential 
omnipotence. 

3. In the power of mental communion (telepa- 
thy), potential omnipresence. 

4. In the natural emotions, potential universal 
altruism, — infinite love. 

I submit that there can be no higher conception 
of divine knowledge — nay, that there can exist no 
higher wisdom, than that which is indicated in the 
word " omniscience ; " that there can exist no greater 
power than is described in the word " omnipotence ; " 
that there can be no broader conception of the all- 
pervasiveness of that wisdom and that power than is 
implied in the word " omnipresence; " and, finally, 
that the human mind can conceive of no quality or 
attribute of the divine personality of greater promise 
and potency than that implied in the words " infinite 
and universal love." 

Moreover, I submit that this is a conception of 
immanence without pantheism and personality with- 
out anthropomorphism. It does not presume either 



IN THE IMAGE OF GOD. 379 

to " limit " or " measure " the powers and attributes 
of God by setting up those of man as a standard of 
measurement. On the contrary, it simply shows 
that an analysis of the known powers of the human 
soul proves that the powers of God are illimitable, 
and hence immeasurable by finite minds. In other 
words, it is not that we can measure the powers of 
the divine mind or set up a standard of its limita- 
tions, but that we may know something of its 
essential qualities by an analysis of its emanations ; 
just as we may, by spectrum analysis, know some- 
thing of the qualities of light without presuming to 
reveal the extent or potency of solar influence. 

This is all that man can know of God by a direct 
analysis of his own powers. But it is something. 
It is, indeed, much; for it is all that man needs to 
know concerning the character and attributes of the 
Great First Cause. Its value lies not more in its 
revelation of God to man than in its revelation of 
man to himself. It is not that it reveals human 
attributes in God, but that it discloses divine attri- 
butes in man, defines his place in nature, and reveals 
the character of his obligations to the Author of his 
being. 



THE END. 



THE LAW OF PSYCHIC 
PHENOMENA 



A WORKING HYPOTHESIS FOR THE 
SYSTEMATIC STUDY OF HYPNOTISM, 
SPIRITISM, MENTAL THERAPEUTICS, etc. 



By THOMSON JAY HUDSON, LL.D. 

Author of "A Scientific Demonstration of the Future Life," 
"The Divine Pedigree of Man," etc. 



12mo. 409 pages. $1.50. 



There cannot be too many books so honest, so faithful to a point of view, 
so elevated and just in tone, so strong and able and comprehensive in reason- 
ing, as this one is. It is the most far-sighted and complete work yet issued 
on the subject. — Public Opinion, Washington. 

Throughout Dr. Hudson is discreet, candid, and reverent. His pages 
impress the fact that there is a wide realm of truth bearing upon his subject in 
which but the most incipient discoveries have been made as yet, and into 
which earnest thinkers may well endeavor to penetrate further. — Congrega- 
tionalist, Boston. 

It would be very pleasant and profitable, if space permitted, to quote 
largely from this interesting book, for it is full of curious things ; but we must 
be satisfied with this general reference and with saying that the volume is 
fresh, novel, somewhat exciting, mentally stimulating, and ought to be widely 
read, as it probably will be.— New York Herald, 

The author has shown himself to be a diligent student of a theme which is 
destined to be uppermost in public attention for a long time to come, and his 
observations are worthy of careful study. — Beacon, Boston. 



For sale by booksellers generally, or will be sent post- 
paid, on receipt of the price, $1.50, by the publishers, 

A. C. McCLURG & CO., CHICAGO. 



A Scientific Demonstration 
of the Future Lifeo 

By THOMSON JAY HUDSON, LL.D. 

AUTHOR OF "THE LAW OF PSYCHIC PHENOMENA." 



l2mo. 326 pages. $1.50. 



One of the most interesting works of the season is * * A Scientific Demon- 
stration of the Future Life." The entire subject is treated in a firmly scien- 
tific manner ; nothing of theory or vague arguing is admitted ; and there is no 
doubt that the book will be as widely read and discussed as was its predecessor, 
" The Law of Psychic Phenomena." — Chicago Daily News, 

The success that "The Law of Psychic Phenomena" met with induced 
the author to prepare and publish the present volume, "for the purpose of 
carrying to their legitimate conclusions some of the principles laid down 7 * in 
his former one. Dr. Hudson, in pursuing his inquiry, has endeavored to 
follow the strictest rules of scientific induction, taking nothing for granted 
that is not axiomatic, and holding that there is nothing worthy of belief that 
is not sustained by a solid basis of well-authenticated facts. — The New York 
Times. 

This latest work is written for the purpose of carrying to their legitimate 
conclusions some of the principles laid down in " The Law of Psychic Phe- 
nomena." The book is a masterly effort of convincing argument, and may be 
read with profit by scientist and scholar. — The Evening Wisconsin. 



For sale by booksellers generally, or will be sent, post- 
paid, on receipt of the price, $ i .50, by the publishers, 

A. C. McCLURG & CO., CHICAGO. 



44 A wonderfully useful book for busy people.'* 

NATIONAL EPICS. 

By KATE MILNER RABB. 

12mo, 398 pages, $1.50. 



Mrs. Rabb's treatment of each epic consists of (1) A descriptive sketch of the 
poem ; (2) An outline of the historical narrative embraced in it ; (3 ) Selections, each of 
which narrates a complete incident; (4) A short bibliography of each poem; (5) A list 
of standard English translations of the foreign epics. The last two of these items 
make the book valuable as a work of reference. The author has performed her heavy 
task with such diligence and literary ability as will certainly win much credit to herself, 
and be the means of edifying and entertaining many a grateful reader. 

This is an excellent guide to a knowledge and appreciation of the world's great 
epic poems. The Hindu, Greek, Roman, Finnish, Saxon, German, French, Spanish, 
Italian, Portuguese, English, and Persian epics of distinctively national importance 
are all represented. . . . The compiler has performed a useful service in making accessi- 
ble in the compass of a single volume so much material for the study of these noble 
poems. — The Review of Reviews^ New York. 

The book is distinguished by unusual merit. The volume may be heartily com- 
mended as a scholarly and satisfactory piece of work, admirably arranged, and pre- 
senting some features which set it apart from similar condensations. — Public Ledger ; 
Philadelphia. 

Kate Milner Rabb has done a good turn for busy people and for those whose 
literary inclinations are not strong enough to sustain a desire to read the epics which 
are the basis of literature. — The Evening Wisconsin. 

Mrs. Rabb succeeds admirably in summarizing the stories of the epics. She has 
endeavored to retain the characteristic epithets of the originals as much as possible, 
and to reflect in her diction their essential spirit. It is sufficient proof of her success 
that her brief prose paraphrases remind one at times of the so-called " Poems of 
Ossian." — New York Commercial Advertiser. 

The idea is an admirable one, and is well carried out. These short stories cannot 
fail to awaken a curiosity which will only be satisfied with a larger study of the great 
epics of the world. — The A dvance. 

A wonderfully useful book for busy people. — St. Paul Pioneer Press. 

The wonder is that it was not done long ago. — Chicago Tribune. 



For sale by booksellers generally, or will be sent, post- 
paid, on receipt of the price, by the publishers, 

A. C. McCLURG Sr CO., CHICAGO 



A GROUP OF FRENCH 
CRITICS 

By MARY FISHER 

i2mo. 300 pages. $1.25 

Those who are in the habit of associating modern French 
writing with the materialistic view of life and the realistic method, 
will find themselves refreshed and encouraged by the vigorous 
protest of men like Scherer and other French critics against the 
dominance of these elements in French literature in recent 
years. — The Outlook, New York. 

The writer of this book deserves the sincerest admiration 
and praise for showing the healthy side of French talent ; and 
those who have been asked to accept Zola and Verlaine as the 
last expression of French genius will be grateful to the author 
for leading them out of the dissecting-room into the pure open 
air. — The Saturday Evening Gazette , Boston. 

An opportune and able book. — The Chattanooga Times. 

" A Group of French Critics " deserves a friendly welcome 
from everybody who desires to know something of the best 
in contemporary French letters. — The Philadelphia Press. 

Here is abundant evidence that the worst elements in 
French literature have not been without their censors close at 
hand, able to say " Thou ailest here and there " with as much 
precision as can be desired. Once more we have brought home 
to us that folly upon which Burke animadverted, — the folly of 
bringing an indictment against a whole people. — The Christian 
Register, Boston. ^^ 

For sale by booksellers generally, or ivM be sent 
postpaid, on receipt of the price by the publishers^ 

A. C. McCLURG AND COMPANY 

Chicago 




o o x 

|: V#' ^| '%/ f^K: ***** 




^ 


















fr 1 

V 
















Ta- 



:., 1 


















a* 1 



'"* <$? 









<^y 






\V *>. " > 






vV </> 









r 














--. 






